# Tea Partiers the same as the Left Wing anti-governemnt hippies of the 1960's



## ElmerMudd (Apr 15, 2010)

There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.

The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.

The younger tea partiers have accelerated drug use to catch up with their elders or they are dumb as a stump without the use of drugs. It could be lack of formal education or not having the ability to read.

The Wacko Left meets the Wacko Right-Tea Party - Hippies.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 15, 2010)

Actually there is alot of difference.

For one the hippies were part of the new left. They were attempting to convert our system to communism through revolution. They were also mostly young adults. They were about irresponsibility.

Tea party members are from all ages. They are trying to shrink the Federal Government. They want responsible individual and responsible government.

I dont see many similiarities at all.


----------



## DiamondDave (Apr 15, 2010)

More unsubstantiated BS from a winger... go figure


----------



## txlonghorn (Apr 15, 2010)

And I'm sure the hippies had better after parties....maybe even an orgy or two


----------



## ihopehefails (Apr 15, 2010)

the people in sixties were fascist revolutionairies trying to overthrow the government in a very similar way the NAZIs did in the 1930s.


----------



## txlonghorn (Apr 15, 2010)

Would you consider Bill Ayers a radical 60's hippy?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...


Incredible.

One of the dumbest things I've heard this year.

Who'd the hippies support?  Communist regimes and big government, moral collapse and drug use.

Who do tea parties support?  Traditional American values, small government, traditional family values and personal responsibility.

But let's keep pushing Goebbel's theory of the big lie like kicking a can down the street hoping nobody will notice.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Would you consider Bill Ayers a radical 60's hippy?


Now there's someone who should have forgotten to ground himself when building his bombs for civic buildings.  Why isn't he doing life with hard labor again?


----------



## ElmerMudd (Apr 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...



You put lip stick on a pig it is still a pig.

Both groups want to take down a duly electred government. Some within both groups are talking of taking up arms against our duly elected governemnt.
Family values BS. Both groups are revolutionaries.

Timothy McVeigh hid behind family values and religion.


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 15, 2010)

reaaaaaaaaaach, stretchhhhhhhhhhhhhh rinse repeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet..


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

Both groups are revolutionaries.  Hmmmm yes, the hippies are revolting and need to be hosed off.

You make the allegation they're the same.  How about some examples?  Links maybe as to how these people in the tea parties demanding lower taxes, reversal of unconstitutional power grabs and return to true federalism is the same as the 1960's Hippie radical.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Apr 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Both groups are revolutionaries.  Hmmmm yes, the hippies are revolting and need to be hosed off.
> 
> You make the allegation they're the same.  How about some examples?  Links maybe as to how these people in the tea parties demanding lower taxes, reversal of unconstitutional power grabs and return to true federalism is the same as the 1960's Hippie radical.



The Tea Partiers and the left wing revolutionaries are similar like todays's Iranian government and the 1980's Soviet Union government were similar.

They are similar in that they do not like the duly elected government of the US and would like to see it disappear. They are united in the hate of the US government not in ideology.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Both groups are revolutionaries.  Hmmmm yes, the hippies are revolting and need to be hosed off.
> ...


Excuse me?  LEFT wing revolutionaries?  And what's President Obama, Winner of the Michael Savage philosophy competition?  If they're so left wing, why do they oppose Obama?  And if you say they're racist 2 things are going to happen.

1. you will prove yourself a liar on multiple fronts because the hippies, by their own propaganda weren't racist.
2. Imma think about slappin the taste outta your mouth for saying something so bigoted yourself.

So, why do these supposedly former hippie left wing radical tea parties oppose Obama, Pelosi and Reid, when those fucktards are doing EVERYTHING they can to give the radical left what they want, except leave Iraq?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 15, 2010)

And no they do not hate the government, they hate what has been done in distorting the power and use of government beyond it's constitutional limits and desire a return to the constitutional constraints that served our country well, before 1860.

The exact opposite is true, they are united by idiology.

But keep pushing those DNC/Daily Kos/Moveon.org talking points in hope some linguine spined 'moderate' may believe the lie.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 15, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Actually there is alot of difference.
> 
> For one the hippies were part of the new left. They were attempting to convert our system to communism through revolution. They were also mostly young adults. They were about irresponsibility.
> 
> ...



How old are you?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Apr 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...


 
Pretty funny because I was seven years old when Woodstock happened, and I cared more about the the premiere of a new cartoon called "Scooby Doo" than Woodstock anyway.  

(I doubt very seriously my Mommy would have let me go to Woodstock anyway.   

Anyone see the disgusting mess those scumballs at Woodstock left for that poor Farmer Yazger who was nice enough to let them use his field for Woodstock?  They didn't even try to clean up!  I was apalled seeing that that end of the film.  I can only imagine how that poor man felt seeing his farm DESTROYED after he was nice enough to let them use his field.

Tea partiers don't act like that.  They dont trash the place.  They have RESPECT.  

Those "green environmentally friendly" liberals left trash everywhere.  HYPOCRITES.

The more the left try to buttonhole, categorize, and stereotype the tea party, the more they fail.

All they are letting us know is how much THEY FEAR US.  They know they can't stop us.  

They are trying, but they are failing.  

Because you can't smear, or stereotype that many people.  

But keep trying liberals.  Your fear, liberals, of November is funny to watch.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 15, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Both groups are revolutionaries.  Hmmmm yes, the hippies are revolting and need to be hosed off.
> ...




Simply repeating they are the same over and over is not really a persuasive argument.

Tea parties dont hate the US Government. We hate abuses by those in power who ignore the Republic that was set up by the Constitution.

You see, the hippies wanted to destroy the US government. We want to restore it. Big difference.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 15, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually there is alot of difference.
> ...



Old enough to see the difference between Neo-communist revolutionaries and Republic Restorationists.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 15, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



I helped put on the Sky River III rock festival in Washougal Washington.   Not an exact comparison to Woodstock..but similar.  We had mud and music.  Your preocuption with Scooby Doo is hardly experience.  If the land owner at Woodstock wanted to shut down the festival he would have and could have.  The police would have enjoyed nothing more.


----------



## Patriot214 (Apr 15, 2010)

If someone is protesting big government they are not a liberal.  The Tea Partiers and "hippies" from the 1960's are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum.


----------



## oreo (Apr 15, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...





You are S.....O far off base--it is unbelievable.  Nope--we are *not* the hippies--we are the ones who fought in Viet Nam--lived--died- raised families-and moved this country *forward.*  IOW--*we are the conservatives of this country.*

Most of us have never protested anything in our lives--that is--until NOW.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...



So wait Free Love = moral collapse
Fuck the draft and US out of vietnam= big government

whatever you say


----------



## Father Time (Apr 15, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



Ok they rented his farm as in they paid him money to use it.

Second they DID try to clean up afterwards. There's DVD footage of it if you really want to find it.



teapartysamurai said:


> Tea partiers don't act like that.  They dont trash the place.  They have RESPECT.



And if you see no difference between a 3 DAY CONCERT and a protest than you're a moron. I'll bet you anything if you get hundreds of thousands of tea partiers in one field for 3 days it won't look pretty afterwards.



teapartysamurai said:


> Those "green environmentally friendly" liberals left trash everywhere.  HYPOCRITES.



Yeah over 500,000 people staying in one spot for 3 days generate trash. If this is surprising to you ... consider having your head examined.



teapartysamurai said:


> All they are letting us know is how much THEY FEAR US.  They know they can't stop us.
> 
> Because you can't smear, or stereotype that many people.



So because you're trying to do that with hippies you fear them?



teapartysamurai said:


> But keep trying liberals.  Your fear, liberals, of November is funny to watch.



If you lack anything substantive you can always pretend criticism = fear.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 15, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



 Nice dodge, I guess it's safe to assume you weren't alive or a small child during the protests.


----------



## Zona (Apr 15, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...



They were trying to stop a war ( in hind site, they were right actually)
baggers are trying to stop having lower taxes ....or some other dumb crap.  They are idiots.  Really.

They are fighting for the health insurance companies.  Idiot rubes.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 16, 2010)

Isn't it funny that Republican/teabaggers believe or suggest that the democratic government has some evil plan with their stimulis spending

but they can't contemplate that Bush (oil guy) and Chaney (defense contractor) lied us into a war for oil and defense contracts.


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 16, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...


Ah, the sweet smell of fear, driping off the big government corruption loving useful idiots.

Its a very good thing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



It's not a dodge to stay on topic when people are asking irrelevant questions to dodge any scrutinization of their position.


----------



## Zona (Apr 16, 2010)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it funny that Republican/teabaggers believe or suggest that the democratic government has some evil plan with their stimulis spending
> 
> but they can't contemplate that Bush (oil guy) and Chaney (defense contractor) lied us into a war for oil and defense contracts.



You mean the fact that Chaney used to run black water and then black water made a mint on that war?  Isnt that just a little bit wrong?


----------



## Sherry (Apr 16, 2010)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it funny that Republican/teabaggers believe or suggest that the democratic government has some evil plan with their stimulis spending
> 
> but they can't contemplate that Bush (oil guy) and Chaney (defense contractor) lied us into a war for oil and defense contracts.



Careful, because that could be flipped and turned right back around on you.


----------



## Douger (Apr 16, 2010)

The tea we had in 1969 wad a damn site better than what these semi literate, flag waving, hillbilly,Sarah worshiping, motherfuckers have today.


----------



## Sherry (Apr 16, 2010)

Douger said:


> The tea we had in 1969 wad a damn site better than what these *semi literate*, flag waving, hillbilly,Sarah worshiping, motherfuckers have today.



 I'd love to take a red pen to your post.


----------



## blastoff (Apr 16, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was sure I spotted Bill Ayers and his old lady in the TV coverage of the Chicago Tea Party.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Douger said:


> The tea we had in 1969 wad a damn site better than what these semi literate, flag waving, hillbilly,Sarah worshiping, motherfuckers have today.


A side effect of paralysis from the neck up, worried no one I see.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


How?  Call the cops?  Do you realize the scale of the riot that would have occurred?  

Okay, maybe there is a flip side to doing that.  Would have destroyed the hippie movement before it got it's screaming grating whiny elitist ungrateful 'voice'.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 16, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...


 The hippies had an excellent reason to protest...a forced draft. The teepees are basically, imo, protesting that the Republicans lost control of the country.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...


Yep.  Free love does equal moral collapse.  See our current divorce rates, single parent families, youth violence and gang activity.  The elimination of shame and social stigma for such juvenile irresponsible behavior has done nothing but harm this nation.  All can be tracing their roots back to the concept of personal irresponsibility and anarchy ensconced in the hippies.

As for the fuck the war... I can just point to general cowardice, geopolitical naivete and the fact the hippies generally wanted communism to win as long as the were left alone to do drugs and fuck anything in sight with no consequences.  The one failing of our grandparents "Greatest Generation"... overprotecting their children from suffering and learning that they have responsibilities and life isn't always pollyanna 'fairness' while bailing them out of every jam they got into.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it funny that Republican/teabaggers believe or suggest that the democratic government has some evil plan with their stimulis spending
> 
> but they can't contemplate that Bush (oil guy) and Chaney (defense contractor) lied us into a war for oil and defense contracts.


There it is!  Post 26 and we get our first BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH!!!!!! mit der drool.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

Ravi said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...


Well at least that's an honest opinion. I can respect that.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 16, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



How the hell is free love even related to those? Do you even know what it means or not? Although I'd love for you to prove that free love is the cause of all that instead of just your personal scapegoat. Oh and how exactly do single parents lead to moral collapse?



Big Fitz said:


> The elimination of shame and social stigma for such juvenile irresponsible behavior has done nothing but harm this nation.  All can be tracing their roots back to the concept of personal irresponsibility and anarchy ensconced in the hippies.



Do so then, with proof.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 16, 2010)

How does 'free love' lead to the following.  We're going to use a little proof called 'logic' and 'critical thinking'.  Let's see if you can keep up.

By reducing the social stigma of children out of wedlock, you create an environment for more and more mothers with children, and no husbands.  And of course, there becomes a need for social support structures to go with it making this behavior of sex before marriage easier to engage in, thereby subsidizing the whole activity

Being freed of the responsibility of fatherhood, young men have more free time and money to go thug around, with idle time in which to get in trouble.  Couple the aging children of the single parents and you have a situation that is ripe with potential for gang activities as young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'.  Of course,, with the idea of free love mixing up the fact that sex is love, you begat another generation of bastards that continue the cycle.  

Now with this cycle in motion, being subsidized on one had by government, and protected (they're victims, not stupid life choices) from the consequences of their actions, and no possible way for consistent adult supervision from the single parent, the cycle continues.  The children with no guidance and direction seek out peers in which to form a value system of their own and clump together in gangs and let basal human nature take over in many regards because they have not been taught, successfully, basic morality.  That's not to say they're feral, but rather, amoral.

The need for money then finds the easiest way to generate large sums with minimal work, and currently, that's drug dealing and use to escape the pain.

That is how free love enables gang violence and drug use.


----------



## KMAN (Apr 16, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...




Just one small hole in your argument...  The "hippies" of the 60's hated our constitution....  The "hippies" of today are fighting for our constitution. 

Other than that... Yep they are the same...


----------



## Father Time (Apr 16, 2010)

"
Being freed of the responsibility of fatherhood, young men have more free time and money to go thug around, with idle time in which to get in trouble."

This ladies and gentlemen is the definition of bullshiting

So by logic ANYTHING that gives men more free time leads to crime, the fact that they want to commit crime has no bearing on any of it.

Hell I could make the same argument for a vasectomy or birth control or adoption.

"young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'"

Prove they actually do this.

Also prove that single parents don't give their kids any moral guidance

Two parents can't constantly monitor their children either.

The whole argument relies on getting rid of the stigma of children when not in a relationship which he has yet to show is even a part of free love (I can't find it on any site advocating free love).

It can also be summed up as thus. Single mothers lead to crime and drugs and gangs (which he hasn't proven). Free love might lead to single mothers. Let's pretend free love is a major cause.

Why am I not surprised you didn't have anything substantive just blanket statements and the like?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 16, 2010)

blastoff said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 16, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...



One day you guys will learn to think for yourselves and come up with you own ideas, or at least learn to give credit to those who you are parroting.

BTW, they are not the same.  In the 60's none of the things they were protesting were fiction.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 16, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...



Ya... I'd like to see what these morons wold be protesting if we had a draft forcing them to send thier kids to die for Bushies wars.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 16, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



Probably the draft, hell I'd be protesting the draft.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

> "young boys and girls seek out an authoritarian figure to fill the bill as 'dad'"
> 
> Prove they actually do this.



What proof will you accept.  The fact that I work with school children for a living and see how they interact and look to older students, teachers and me as a role model and to give them guidance, set boundaries, give expectations and encouragement as well as discipline, probably means nothing to you because I'm not linking to some leftwing lunatic blog that backs up your point.  So, you can be your own research monkey if you want.  I have first hand experience.  You can either deny it, like I bet you would any proof I gave, or believe it.  I don't have to prove jack shit to you.



> So by logic ANYTHING that gives men more free time leads to crime, the fact that they want to commit crime has no bearing on any of it.



Ever hear the phrase "Idle hands are the devil's workshop?"  It says that LOGICALLY, if given enough unstructured, unproductive time, a person will find something to do and this is more likely to be of a negative nature.  As compared to those people who have something productive to do to keep them busy this is simply more likely.  Sure, they may do something other than criminal activity, but they aren't more likely to do something good or charitable or productive.  How many Latin King or MS13 charitable drives for the needy do you hear about?  Or how many unemployed, youth go about improving their neighborhood?  So few that they rate "Man Bites Dog" levels of occurrence.




> Two parents can't constantly monitor their children either.


Never said they could.  I assert they do a BETTER job than one, and therefore, lapses in parenting are, unfortunately, more likely to occur.  That is logical.



> It can also be summed up as thus. Single mothers lead to crime and drugs and gangs (which he hasn't proven). Free love might lead to single mothers. Let's pretend free love is a major cause.



What other than loose morality, a socially permissive society to promiscuity and subsidized single parenting system would you say leads to single mothers?  



> Why am I not surprised you didn't have anything substantive just blanket statements and the like?



And I can't help your inability to follow a logical chain of events.  You want charts and data to back up what is blatantly obvious, go get em, research monkey, and bring em back to disprove my assertions.  You're just whistling Dixie and neg repping to be a punk otherwise.  Just because you don't like what the consequences are of your loony left's good intentions doesn't change the fact that they are what they are.



> This ladies and gentlemen is the definition of bullshiting



yes.  You are.  So go get me some proof showing I'm wrong with graphs and numbers and shit that I'll accept, or butch up, Sally and peddle your papers elsewhere.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen free time leads to crime and not having to be a father gives one too much free time. The logical implication is that (for males) not being a Dad makes one more likely to be a criminal. 

Well let's see though if that were true we'd probably have a record high level of crime what with all the time saving things we have in modern society.

But wait we don't, in fact the crime rates are decreasing, some have even hit record lows.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Key Facts: Crime Type

Interesting.

I also noticed that you haven't backed up your claims of single mothers unable to teach kids morality, or that they lead to criminal kids.

I never claimed to know what causes single parents but don't let that stop you.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

> You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen free time leads to crime and not having to be a father gives one too much free time. The logical implication is that (for males) not being a Dad makes one more likely to be a criminal.



Disingenuously misrepresenting my statement.  But what else should I expect from a whooped lib who can't get logical progression?



> Well let's see though if that were true we should have a record high level of crime what with all the time saving things we have in modern society.
> 
> But wait we don't, in fact the crime level is decreasing, some have even hit record lows.



Oh boy!  Let's not look at other factors that we hadn't been addressing because they were not relevant and then try to use straight line assumption as the basis for truthiness!  Yes, crime is decreasing.  So is the single parent family in the sense of young unwed mothers and teens.  Why?  A lot of education on this being a bad thing and re-introduction of morality, amazingly, begrudgingly through the schools and outreach programs.  But this is only one factor in many.  But if you want to play fantasy land with the information, I'll start dinging you more neg rep for lying.

and since I can't trust honesty from you... here.

Single Parent Statistics
Single Parent Family Demographics Lots of articles backing my logic... as if you'd admit it.
Rise and fall of Single Parent...
Effects of Fatherlessness  Boom goes your theory.
Family Life, Delinquency & Crime convinced I'm right yet?



> I also noticed that you haven't backed up your claims of single mothers unable to teach kids morality, or that they lead to criminal kids.



Again, you deliberately misrepresent what I said.  You claim I'm making erroneous blanket statements then make your own?  Semantic hypocrite.  But the research I did for you should change your mind.  If not... nothing will.



> I never claimed to know what causes single parents but don't let that stop you.



Are you through?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.


Your trolling proves that too much free time leads to delinquency.

nuff said.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > You know what screw free love and single parents I really want to see how he's going to show free time leads to crime.
> ...



You got nothing in other words.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


Got nothing?  What's with the crickets over all the links I provided?  hmmmmmmm....

slink away little man.... slink away.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

So let's see your first stat says single parents are on the rise.

The third one is outdated
The first and fourth one uses the correlation =causation fallacy (which is freaking ironic that you called me out for using it then use it yourself).

The fifth one cites economic conditions bad neighborhoods, a stigma on the children and says
"Research indicates that at least 25 percent of all families with children are single-parent households. Most of these families do not produce delinquent children. "

So great job shooting yourself in the foot with your own link (moron)

The second I can't find any of their sources cited, but hey one of them says 
"many of the negative effects disappear when there is adequate supervision, income, and continuity in social networks"

So it's not some grand feat to raise a kid in a single parent home.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Which one of your links talks about free time causing crime?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Figures.  No proof you'd accept.  Stick with your fantasy world.

You've proven jack shit yourself, you know.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


If you can't keep up with the conversation, you're not worth talking too either.  Go back to remedial posting.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



You still haven't come up with anything to prove free time causes crime.

Your own links contradict your claim that single parent homes are declining and one of them says that most single parent homes do not produce delinquents. In fact it's the only one to provide anything that shows the percent of single parent kids who do bad things. I wonder what that says.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I'll take your continued dodging as proof you have absolutely nothing to support the idea that free time = more crime.


----------



## blu (Apr 17, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Actually there is alot of difference.
> 
> For one the hippies were part of the new left. They were attempting to convert our system to communism through revolution. They were also mostly young adults. They were about irresponsibility.
> 
> ...



except for social security, medicare, the iraq war and maintaining the empire in general, tea partiers are for smaller government.


----------



## blu (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...


----------



## ElmerMudd (Apr 17, 2010)

blu said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



Small government is a relevant term, Family values is a relative term.
Granted the ideology of the left wing wackos of the 60's is different than the ideology of the right wing wackos of today but what they are doing is the same.
Even though both are minorities they want to oppose a duly elected US Government. Both groups have a significant segment that has discussed using violence to make the changes.

You might not like it but the Tea Partiers are in the same gutter as the left wing wackos of the 60's.


----------



## Smartt33 (Apr 17, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> 
> The Tea Partiers are probably hippies that have grown up, taken a bath, cut their hair but their brains are gone because of too many drugs in the 1960's.
> 
> ...



I guess you haven't been reading the reports about the Tea Party crowd. You missed it on every point.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Apr 17, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The left wingers wanted a different government, not no government.

The Left wing wackos chanted "power to the people".

Today's right wing wackos are saying "bring the power back to the people"

Both groups wanted to bring power to THEIR people not all people.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 17, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



The war protesters were a little miffed that nearly 60,000 of "Thier" people were sacrificed(killed) not to mention the hundreds of thousands of injured... for no reason.  Not to mention in thiier peoples name millions of asians were murdered and maimed.  The Tea Babblers are miffed because they lost a presidential election...no fatalities...no injuries.    I would say that there is little resemblance in who was fighting for something more meaningful.  Perhaps the teabaggers are so stupid they cannot tell the difference.
MMMMMmmmm???? Hurt feelings.....A generation of murder????   Tough call!!!


----------



## ElmerMudd (Apr 17, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Interesting point. One I would not argue with even though some in the 60's took their tactics too far.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 17, 2010)

ElmerMudd said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



I have a little something to add about the tactics also.  I was in my drag racing dodge in what we call the U-district here in Seattle in 68 and was enjoying a front row seat during one of the most "violent" protests and the hippies were carryin signs and marchin and from behind the mass of protesters some older guys in suits started throwing bricks and rocks from behind the crowd.  Several bank buildings windows were also smashed out that day.  Guess what? It turned out that those destroying the property were FBI infiltraters trying to make the protest appear violent.  No shit.  This is a fact.  I was there...any questions?


----------



## Octoldit (Apr 17, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between the Tea Partiers and the Left Wing anti government demonstrators of the 1960's except what they wear.
> ...



Americans took the time to see just what the tea party is all about, and now it's clear they don't know what they believe in. They can be used and manipulated in much the same way as the brown shirts of Germany.

Any group too ignorant to prevent themselves from being defined by obstructionist, and fox news can indeed be link to some drugged out hippies. Actually the hippie comparison is a much nicer way of stating it.

The bankers within the Federal Reserve banking system are responsible for the communist Soviet Union, and communist China stealing our employment and manufacturing here in America. They finance the Spraying bio-toxins in the air, the fluorination/poisoning of our water, and the tea party people seem clueless about the true enemy. 

The tea party people also seem clueless about American values...they are starting to look like kooks and don't realize so-called conservatives are nothing more than sell-outs who are siding with corporations and banks to replace/overthrow the American government.

As long as Government revenue is used for wars, and anything other than the American people and the common good so-called conservatives are on board. 

Those people really look stupid with the tea bags hanging from their hats. They talk about taking the government back...the question they have to make clear is that they know who to focus on in terms of making the Government debt free and independent.

Those people really need to educate themselves, before its becomes clear that a George Wallace tea party has nothing at all in common with the Boston tea party.

Youre really confused Big Fits!


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 18, 2010)

Wow, hell must have frozen over, Octodolt got someone to thank him.


----------



## Octoldit (Apr 18, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Wow, hell must have frozen over, Octodolt got someone to thank him.



The Octoldit is not seeking thanks, it's not about me at all. When the information that's provided proves to be helpful, and beneficial to American redemption is just part of the struggle.

It's you creeps that get your communist cult member buddies to issue all the bogus thank you's to create a very false perception of credibility. 

You people really stinketh.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 18, 2010)

Octoldit said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > ElmerMudd said:
> ...



Communist? WTF?  Sorry I don't read enough of your stuff to differentiate personal needs.



I thought your above post was pretty spot on.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Apr 18, 2010)

The tea baggers just seem to be whiney obstructionists.  What the original tea party was about was 'no taxation without representation'.  Tell me how there is any resemblance to the prior tradition.


----------



## Octoldit (Apr 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The tea baggers just seem to be whiney obstructionists.  What the original tea party was about was 'no taxation without representation'.  Tell me how there is any resemblance to the prior tradition.



Can someone just answer the question?


----------

