# Libs try to infiltrate tea party to feed liberal media



## CMike

FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It


----------



## VaYank5150

CMike said:


> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It





You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering.  AWESOME!


----------



## masquerade

Tea Party Maligned

_So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you. 

The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them. 

As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets. 

Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_


----------



## VaYank5150

masquerade said:


> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_



Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
Click to expand...


Yea, we need to spit at Military people and burn some flags to be taken seriously as protesters, right? Fucking moron. 

The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left, they aren't smart enough  to keep it off public forums. Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it. 

And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.


----------



## masquerade

VaYank5150 said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
Click to expand...


1.  I am not a jerk-off as you so colorfully put it.
2.  I am not racist or a bigot
3.  I attended the 9/12 rally in D.C. where I personally witnessed thousands of peaceful protestors.

Have a nice day VaYank.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, we need to spit at Military people and burn some flags to be taken seriously as protesters, right? Fucking moron.
> 
> The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left, they aren't smart enough  to keep it off public forums. Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it.
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.
Click to expand...


And the fact that the Tea Baggers are too stupid to stop the infiltration even when these "sneak" attacks are telegraphed, speaks volumes about the intellect of you and the rest of you "patriots".


----------



## VaYank5150

masquerade said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am not a jerk-off as you so colorfully put it.
> 2.  I am not racist or a bigot
> 3.  I attended the 9/12 rally in D.C. where I personally witnessed thousands of peaceful protestors.
> 
> Have a nice day VaYank.
Click to expand...


Back at ya.


----------



## NYcarbineer

What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme?  Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.  

We get it.  Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.

Gee, you people are so brilliant.  In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.


----------



## Xenophon

California Girl said:


> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.


The really funny thing is, arianna huffington was a conservative until she figured out you could make real money off the drooling barry worship crowd.


----------



## CMike

It figures. Liberals are naturally dishonest. Why should be surprised that they try go their plants on TV?


----------



## jillian

what an ignorant world view... 

you really should get that whole paranoia thing checked out.


----------



## CMike

jillian said:


> what an ignorant world view...
> 
> you really should get that whole paranoia thing checked out.



I agree. I wish Carbineer would get the message


----------



## Vanquish

It's amazing that progress (ooooh terrible word) has ever occurred on this planet. When there's zero accountability and zero proof for who really does evil stuff (was it liberal infiltrators or republicans acting as liberal infiltrators or was it liberals acting like conservative infiltrators acting like liberal infiltrators)...society breaks down.

Can't you see this is why compromise is necessary? Side A doesnt get 100% what they want...Side B doesnt get 100% what they want...but both get something. Call that weakness if you like, but I call that working together and avoiding complete meltdown.


----------



## teapartysamurai

VaYank5150 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering. AWESOME!
Click to expand...

 
I think we see the fear mongering in all the lies the liberals have been trying to use to smear the tea party movement.


----------



## Big Fitz

VaYank5150 said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
Click to expand...

Huh... I don't see any of the same problems that happened at the RNC convention in St. Paul.

-Cops arresting radicals in a house making urine and feces 'bombs' and other explosives with nails and broken glass for shrapnel and weapons in which to attack police.  
-Deliberately obstructing traffic and screaming racist epithets at every passing minority deligate in the GOP (If you got proof of teaparties doing this contact Andrew Breitbart for your $100k award).  
-Multiple efforts to cause obstruction of traffic, vandalism and civil disobedience that required the crowd to then be dispersed by tear gas.  
-Getting in cops faces, calling them pigs and other insults just so the 'man' will haul their asses to jail.

And let's not forget other tactics like staging military 'disappearances' and 'arrests' with half-assed community theater actors trying to stir up rumors of secret police snatches they 'unwittingly' captured on video.  Those are laughable.

I don't see any of this from the Tea Parties.  But I do see video of SEIU and other brown shirted (purple really) SEIU thugs attacking and biting and attempting to maim detractors from healthcare reform.  So I guess they don't 'peacefully' or 'respectfully' assemble by your standards.


----------



## NYcarbineer

We need an -er word for this new group of rightwing tinfoilers.


----------



## teapartysamurai

VaYank5150 said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you. _
> 
> _The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them. _
> 
> _As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets. _
> 
> _Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it. Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah only liberals know how to protest and they are NEEEEEEEEEEEEVER racist!    And I would like liberals to show me the molotov cocktails that conservatives throw.    OR THE CONSERVATIVES TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN TO THROW MOLOTOVS.

The zombietime Hall of Shame





Anti-Semitic sign at the February 16, 2003 "anti-war" rally. 




This man at the "Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally on August 12, 2006 wants the Nazi kikes to get out of Lebanon. 





 Molotov cocktail explodes in front of the _San Francisco Chronicle_ offices during the "World Can't Wait" rally on November 2, 2005. 





Young child holding a sign accusing Jews of stealing organs from dead Palestinians, at the Bus 19 anti-terror rally in Berkeley on January 16, 2005.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme? Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it. Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant. In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.


 


Oh get this.  It must be conservatives making this all up.

When you have evidence let us know.


----------



## rightwinger

Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.

Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone


----------



## Big Fitz

But but... pinning the Molotov cocktail on the cop car is a KID'S game!  It's educational!  How can that be wrong?  After all, they're only pigs, and who'd care about them being killed?  The ends justify the means, don't you know?


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, we need to spit at Military people and burn some flags to be taken seriously as protesters, right? Fucking moron.
> 
> The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left, they aren't smart enough  to keep it off public forums. Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it.
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact that the Tea Baggers are too stupid to stop the infiltration even when these "sneak" attacks are telegraphed, speaks volumes about the intellect of you and the rest of you "patriots".
Click to expand...


Why stop it? It does them more damage than it will the TEA Parties. If you don't see that, you're even more of an idiot than those who think they're being clever announcing their intentions to dismantle the TEA Parties. The TEA Party Patriots are not scared of the assclowns on the rabid left. 

The 'telegraphing' of their plans shoots themselves in the foot. They really should have been smarter.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone


 
It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers.

It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme?  Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it.  Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant.  In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.



Before you start laughing about it, you might want research it and find out where it's coming from.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Big Fitz said:


> But but... pinning the Molotov cocktail on the cop car is a KID'S game! It's educational! How can that be wrong? After all, they're only pigs, and who'd care about them being killed? The ends justify the means, don't you know?


 



Exactly!


----------



## tigerbob

masquerade said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> _So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let the bullies intimidate you.
> 
> The liberal elite and social engineers are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned name-calling. It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book: call someone you don't like a racist, a sexist or a hot-head and you've effectively discredited them. The bullies have taken your children's future, and now they want to take your dignity and your voice. But don't let them.
> 
> As smart Americans across the land are spending their hard-earned money to hire accountants to fill out stupid, complex tax forms that no one can understand, it's time to take to the streets. As moms and dads are writing out those huge tax checks and sending them off to God-knows-who in Washington to do God-knows-what with, it's time to take to the streets.
> 
> Peaceful assembly comprised of very loud and vocal protests have long been successful methods in this country for securing civil rights for the oppressed and downtrodden. Well, our kids are the oppressed. Their future has been trampled. Take to the streets!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am not a jerk-off as you so colorfully put it.
> 2.  I am not racist or a bigot
> 3.  I attended the 9/12 rally in D.C. where I personally witnessed thousands of peaceful protestors.
> 
> Have a nice day VaYank.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I attended one and saw mainly people who were there to protest big government and increased public spending.  I saw some 'fringe' elements as well, but would not describe them as anything like the majority.

It is rather saddening to be dismissed as a racist jerkoff, but unfortunately the moment you voice one political opinion you are assumed to have a whole host of others as well.

I guess it's easier to ascribe generally accepted negatives to the tea parties and thereby dismiss them as bigots than it is to address their actual concerns.


----------



## VaYank5150

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
Click to expand...


ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet.  Noone need create anything.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> masquerade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I am not a jerk-off as you so colorfully put it.
> 2.  I am not racist or a bigot
> 3.  I attended the 9/12 rally in D.C. where I personally witnessed thousands of peaceful protestors.
> 
> Have a nice day VaYank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I attended one and saw mainly people who were there to protest big government and increased public spending.  I saw some 'fringe' elements as well, but would not describe them as anything like the majority.
> 
> It is rather saddening to be dismissed as a racist jerkoff, but unfortunately the moment you voice one political opinion you are assumed to have a whole host of others as well.
> 
> I guess it's easier to ascribe generally accepted negatives to the tea parties and thereby dismiss them as bigots than it is to address their actual concerns.
Click to expand...


True. What I find most interesting is that none of those who hold these opinions about the TEA Parties appear to have actually attended one. Therefore, their views don't come from a legitimate source.... they are, in fact, just regurgitating shit from the MSM. I find that a lot these days. Very few seem to be able to care enough to find out for themselves, they rely on a biased media to spoon feed them 'talking points'. It's sad really. The dumbing down of America.


----------



## tigerbob

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
Click to expand...


Dismissing liberals as stupid is as absurd as dismissing tea partyers as racists.  Do you not see that parallel?


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet.  Noone need create anything.
Click to expand...


Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.


----------



## boedicca

VaYank5150 said:


> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.



I call shenanigans.

Please provide evidence that the thousands of tea party events that have taken place across the country over the past 14 months were fraught with racism and violence.  If it is as prevalent as you claim, there should be an enormous quantity of pics and video showing riots, looting, and racist incidents.


----------



## Vanquish

Of course not. 99% of USMB posts are partisan hackery. Another .5% are complete quackery.


----------



## Ravi

NYcarbineer said:


> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme?  Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it.  Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant.  In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.


Professional victims just like their hero, Palin.


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
Click to expand...


Look to your left.....is he a liberal plant?

Look to your right......Notice the shoes he is wearing....only a liberal would wear shoes like that

See that grandmother over there shouting racist slogans?  She must be a liberal


How do you know who to trust Tea Baggers?  How do you know?


----------



## VaYank5150

<snicker>

Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.


----------



## rightwinger

Tea Party Souvenirs  .....






Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.



So, you can't provide actual evidence - other than some photographs which may, or may not, be legitimate. Thought not. 

Just checking - exactly how are we defining the word 'stupid' now? Because I'm kind of thinking that providing 'evidence' that isn't verifiable is not actually providing 'evidence' at all, is it? Until you can accredit the images they are, in fact, just images.... they prove nothing other than your ability to post pictures.


----------



## rightwinger

Can you tell which one is the Librul Plant???


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't provide actual evidence - other than some photographs which may, or may not, be legitimate. Thought not.
> 
> Just checking - exactly how are we defining the word 'stupid' now? Because I'm kind of thinking that providing 'evidence' that isn't verifiable is not actually providing 'evidence' at all, is it? Until you can accredit the images they are, in fact, just images.... they prove nothing other than your ability to post pictures.
Click to expand...


Oh...so you are one of THOSE people?  Let me guess?  A birther too?  A Truther?  One of those people who still believes we never landed on the moon because photgraphs can be doctored?


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> Tea Party Souvenirs  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again



McCain Monkey | SockPoliticians







Dammit, that evil California Girl making rightwinger look stupid.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't provide actual evidence - other than some photographs which may, or may not, be legitimate. Thought not.
> 
> Just checking - exactly how are we defining the word 'stupid' now? Because I'm kind of thinking that providing 'evidence' that isn't verifiable is not actually providing 'evidence' at all, is it? Until you can accredit the images they are, in fact, just images.... they prove nothing other than your ability to post pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...so you are one of THOSE people?  Let me guess?  A birther too?  A Truther?  One of those people who still believes we never landed on the moon because photgraphs can be doctored?
Click to expand...


Try not to be an idiot all day every day. Actually, I have stated on this forum that I believe Obama is legitimately the President, born in the US, etc. 

It's not my fault you use evidence that you cannot source. That is your own stupidity. Now, tell me where and when each of those photos was taken otherwise I have no reason to believe they are real. 

Such is the burden - you provided the evidence.... you back it up. 

My point really is that it is fucking idiotic to use shit to make a point unless you know where that shit came from. 

And, like a lawyer, I never ask a question unless I already know the answer.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't provide actual evidence - other than some photographs which may, or may not, be legitimate. Thought not.
> 
> Just checking - exactly how are we defining the word 'stupid' now? Because I'm kind of thinking that providing 'evidence' that isn't verifiable is not actually providing 'evidence' at all, is it? Until you can accredit the images they are, in fact, just images.... they prove nothing other than your ability to post pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...so you are one of THOSE people?  Let me guess?  A birther too?  A Truther?  One of those people who still believes we never landed on the moon because photgraphs can be doctored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to be an idiot all day every day. Actually, I have stated on this forum that I believe Obama is legitimately the President, born in the US, etc.
> 
> It's not my fault you use evidence that you cannot source. That is your own stupidity. Now, tell me where and when each of those photos was taken otherwise I have no reason to believe they are real.
> 
> Such is the burden - you provided the evidence.... you back it up.
> 
> My point really is that it is fucking idiotic to use shit to make a point unless you know where that shit came from.
> 
> And, like a lawyer, I never ask a question unless I already know the answer.
Click to expand...


So, in a nutshell what you are saying is that out of the thousands of photographs taken of Tea Baggers across the country, you believe them all to be faked unless you are supplied with the what, when, where details?  If so, why are you so willing to believe that Obama is a US citizen?  Have you held his birth certificate in your hands?


----------



## Big Fitz

rightwinger said:


> Tea Party Souvenirs  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again


Put the W on it and it's a Bush 43 doll.  How many times was he portrayed as a monkey?  

Can the fauxrage.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...so you are one of THOSE people?  Let me guess?  A birther too?  A Truther?  One of those people who still believes we never landed on the moon because photgraphs can be doctored?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to be an idiot all day every day. Actually, I have stated on this forum that I believe Obama is legitimately the President, born in the US, etc.
> 
> It's not my fault you use evidence that you cannot source. That is your own stupidity. Now, tell me where and when each of those photos was taken otherwise I have no reason to believe they are real.
> 
> Such is the burden - you provided the evidence.... you back it up.
> 
> My point really is that it is fucking idiotic to use shit to make a point unless you know where that shit came from.
> 
> And, like a lawyer, I never ask a question unless I already know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in a nutshell what you are saying is that out of the thousands of photographs taken of Tea Baggers across the country, you believe them all to be faked unless you are supplied with the what, when, where details?  If so, why are you so willing to believe that Obama is a US citizen?  Have you held his birth certificate in your hands?
Click to expand...


Damn, do I have to explain everything to you? Are you honestly mentally challenged or something? I think I posted in English... there is no need for a moron to 'translate' my posts. 

In a nutshell.... you keep throwing these pictures out as evidence. So, tell me when and where they were taken. How hard is that? 

I accept that the Security checks done on Obama were sufficient, unless someone has concrete evidence of something else. I'm not really much on conspiracy theories as such.


----------



## California Girl

Big Fitz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Souvenirs  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again
> 
> 
> 
> Put the W on it and it's a Bush 43 doll.  How many times was he portrayed as a monkey?
> 
> Can the fauxrage.
Click to expand...


It comes from sockpoliticians.com. They sell one of McCain too. So, in fact, rightwinger is a liar. Where is truthmatters when there are lies to be exposed?


----------



## 007

The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.


----------



## MaggieMae

So I guess this means the Tea Party does NOT welcome with open arms people of all political persuasion? Surprise surprise...


----------



## 007

MaggieMae said:


> So I guess this means the Tea Party does NOT welcome with open arms people of all political persuasion? Surprise surprise...



Not when their sole purpose is to destroy it. Use your fucking head for something other than a hat rack.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to be an idiot all day every day. Actually, I have stated on this forum that I believe Obama is legitimately the President, born in the US, etc.
> 
> It's not my fault you use evidence that you cannot source. That is your own stupidity. Now, tell me where and when each of those photos was taken otherwise I have no reason to believe they are real.
> 
> Such is the burden - you provided the evidence.... you back it up.
> 
> My point really is that it is fucking idiotic to use shit to make a point unless you know where that shit came from.
> 
> And, like a lawyer, I never ask a question unless I already know the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in a nutshell what you are saying is that out of the thousands of photographs taken of Tea Baggers across the country, you believe them all to be faked unless you are supplied with the what, when, where details?  If so, why are you so willing to believe that Obama is a US citizen?  Have you held his birth certificate in your hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, do I have to explain everything to you? Are you honestly mentally challenged or something? I think I posted in English... there is no need for a moron to 'translate' my posts.
> 
> In a nutshell.... you keep throwing these pictures out as evidence. So, tell me when and where they were taken. How hard is that?
> 
> I accept that the Security checks done on Obama were sufficient, unless someone has concrete evidence of something else. I'm not really much on conspiracy theories as such.
Click to expand...


Thank you for having this conversation out in the open, Cali.  I believe I have proven my point about you.  Neg rep me again, if you wish, but they were your own words.


----------



## masquerade

MaggieMae said:


> So I guess this means the Tea Party does NOT welcome with open arms people of all political persuasion? Surprise surprise...



Says YOU.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> So I guess this means the Tea Party does NOT welcome with open arms people of all political persuasion? Surprise surprise...


Sure, as long as they're aligned politically with the Tea Party.  Otherwise that's kinda a stupid thing to do, wouldn't you agree?  That'd be like saying:

Huh... we just don't have enough Al Quaeda members in the US military.  Maybe we should do something to fix that, don't you think?  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Ravi

Pale Rider said:


> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.


What would be obviously inflammatory statements?


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be obviously inflammatory statements?
Click to expand...


Anything they have listed here... Crash The Tea Party!

I guess the thing is, any liberal stupid enough to try this bull shit, better be hoping they aren't lucky enough to be standing beside me when they do.


----------



## rightwinger

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Souvenirs  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain Monkey | SockPoliticians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dammit, that evil California Girl making rightwinger look stupid.
Click to expand...


LOL....You expect me to buy off on that fake?

"Trust us....we're not racist......we made a McCain sock puppet too!"

Nice try California Girl


----------



## Vanquish

So it's ok for YOU to hurt people, Pale, because you're the guardian of what's right?

Wow. Great job proving that you're part of the problem you were trying to disprove!!!
mahahahahahahaha


----------



## ABikerSailor

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in a nutshell what you are saying is that out of the thousands of photographs taken of Tea Baggers across the country, you believe them all to be faked unless you are supplied with the what, when, where details?  If so, why are you so willing to believe that Obama is a US citizen?  Have you held his birth certificate in your hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, do I have to explain everything to you? Are you honestly mentally challenged or something? I think I posted in English... there is no need for a moron to 'translate' my posts.
> 
> In a nutshell.... you keep throwing these pictures out as evidence. So, tell me when and where they were taken. How hard is that?
> 
> I accept that the Security checks done on Obama were sufficient, unless someone has concrete evidence of something else. I'm not really much on conspiracy theories as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for having this conversation out in the open, Cali.  I believe I have proven my point about you.  Neg rep me again, if you wish, but they were your own words.
Click to expand...


See.......the right wing whore known as Cali Twit only knows how to respond like that.  The stupid bitch never has anything pertinent to say, nor does she even have much knowledge to throw in.

All she's got is bitchiness, snarkiness, and a willingness to cozy up to someone who thinks like she does, or has something she wants.

Typical whore behavior, because she doesn't do it for anything other than right wing ideals, or positive rep.

Her only response to those she doesn't have the intelligence to respond to logically is Palinesque bitchiness, with Bachman crazy.

A neg rep from Cali Whore is like a little ray of sunshine to me, because then I know I'm still not buying into the bullshit and wing nuttery.


----------



## CMike

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look to your left.....is he a liberal plant?
> 
> Look to your right......Notice the shoes he is wearing....only a liberal would wear shoes like that
> 
> See that grandmother over there shouting racist slogans?  She must be a liberal
> 
> 
> How do you know who to trust Tea Baggers?  How do you know?
Click to expand...


Didn't you say you were a republican? Didn't jakey claim to be a republican?


----------



## CMike

VaYank5150 said:


> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.



Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.


----------



## CMike

rightwinger said:


> Can you tell which one is the Librul Plant???



The "don't tax me bro" sign was very offensive


----------



## VaYank5150

CMike said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
Click to expand...


This coming from YOU only reinforces my original statement.


----------



## NYcarbineer

CMike said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
Click to expand...


If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd neg rep for that one.


----------



## VaYank5150

NYcarbineer said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I wasn't such a nice guy I'd neg rep for that one.
Click to expand...


<You must spread some reputation around before giving it to NYcarbineer again>


----------



## Dr.House

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't provide actual evidence - other than some photographs which may, or may not, be legitimate. Thought not.
> 
> Just checking - exactly how are we defining the word 'stupid' now? Because I'm kind of thinking that providing 'evidence' that isn't verifiable is not actually providing 'evidence' at all, is it? Until you can accredit the images they are, in fact, just images.... they prove nothing other than your ability to post pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...so you are one of THOSE people?  Let me guess?  A birther too?  A Truther?  One of those people who still believes we never landed on the moon because photgraphs can be doctored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to be an idiot all day every day. Actually, I have stated on this forum that I believe Obama is legitimately the President, born in the US, etc.
> 
> It's not my fault you use evidence that you cannot source. That is your own stupidity. Now, tell me where and when each of those photos was taken otherwise I have no reason to believe they are real.
> 
> Such is the burden - you provided the evidence.... you back it up.
> 
> My point really is that it is fucking idiotic to use shit to make a point unless you know where that shit came from.
> 
> And, like a lawyer, I never ask a question unless I already know the answer.
Click to expand...


I hear these signs are real too:


----------



## ABikerSailor

CMike said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
Click to expand...


Well said Tweedle Dumb.  You've just vouched for Twat Dee.


----------



## Coloradomtnman

CMike said:


> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It



Another right wing conspiracy...most likely based on baseless fearmongering.

So what is someone who believes this sort of whacko nonsense?

A teabagger truther?


----------



## teapartysamurai

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people. They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work. Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives. They will be easy to spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet. Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
Click to expand...

 
The "get a brain morans" is NOT from the tea party. That has been on the internet for YEARS and was a liberal protest sign.  I mean please it's pretty obvious to tell.  The long hair and the "do rag."  Seriously?  From the Tea party?  ROFL!   

When he can lie on one he can lie on the rest of them. 

And it was Colin Powell who was called the "house Nword" by the left.

Nice try on that one.


----------



## NYcarbineer

CMike said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
Click to expand...


Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> Tea Party Souvenirs .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again


 
Excuse me liberal hypocrites, but how many times did liberals call Bush "chimpy?"

And make HIM look like a chimp? 

Doesn't that make liberal the racists? Suggesting it's only okay to call a white president a chimp but a black president is off limits?

TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.


----------



## teapartysamurai

NYcarbineer said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid. Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
Click to expand...

 
Cause dammit they know I'm hot!  

(runs away fast)


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
Click to expand...


Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.

If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.


----------



## CMike

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.
> 
> If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM]YouTube - Stripes - Don't Call Me Francis[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor

NYcarbineer said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snicker>
> 
> Cali-G IS that stupid.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
Click to expand...


Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.

They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.

All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.

Me?  I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.
> 
> If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.
Click to expand...

 


Oh gee, I got flamed by a someone not intelligent enough to debate. 

And since I'm equally as moronic, I will flame him back.

Well that's enough for that fantasy.

Now onto reality. Sorry, but I laugh at flamers. They tell more about themselves and their inability to do anything else by flaming. I don't have to do anthing to insult them. They are already doing that job themselves.


----------



## CMike

ABikerSailor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.
> 
> They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.
> 
> All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.
> 
> Me?  I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yr-Pp4PFVA]YouTube - Angry Man Computer Smash[/ame]


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.
> 
> They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.
> 
> All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.
> 
> Me? I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.
Click to expand...

 
See what I mean?


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.
> 
> They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.
> 
> All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.
> 
> Me? I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.
Click to expand...

 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_tELkI0vbU]YouTube - "I'm A Danger To Myself and Others"[/ame]


----------



## CMike

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.
> 
> If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9sE55QzXlo]YouTube - Funniest Scene In Anger Management "I Feel Pretty"[/ame]


----------



## teapartysamurai

CMike said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.
> 
> If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9sE55QzXlo"]YouTube - Funniest Scene In Anger Management "I Feel Pretty"[/ame]
Click to expand...

 
That video is hilarious!


----------



## VaYank5150

teapartysamurai said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet. Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The "get a brain morans" is NOT from the tea party. That has been on the internet for YEARS and was a liberal protest sign.  I mean please it's pretty obvious to tell.  The long hair and the "do rag."  Seriously?  From the Tea party?  ROFL!   *
> 
> When he can lie on one he can lie on the rest of them.
> 
> And it was Colin Powell who was called the "house Nword" by the left.
> 
> Nice try on that one.
Click to expand...


Got anything like, I don't know....proof?


----------



## teapartysamurai

VaYank5150 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The "get a brain morans" is NOT from the tea party. That has been on the internet for YEARS and was a liberal protest sign. I mean please it's pretty obvious to tell. The long hair and the "do rag." Seriously? From the Tea party? ROFL!  *
> 
> When he can lie on one he can lie on the rest of them.
> 
> And it was Colin Powell who was called the "house Nword" by the left.
> 
> Nice try on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got anything like, I don't know....proof?
Click to expand...

 


Hellooooooooooooooooo! But when Dan Rather produced phony National Guard records for Bush, that was his response. That people had to "prove" they were fake.

It doesn't work that way. The person who posted these photos needs to prove they are legit.

I'm sorry but the I KNOW the first one is fake, because I knew a person who had picture has his avatar for years. It's old.

The person who posted them needs to prove their veracity. NOT the other way around.



However:



> *Was the "Moran" guy a prank?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Via a prank-related mailing list (from a liberal I know in meatspace):
> _Got this by e-mail... no source, can't find it on google. Don't know if it's been posted here before, but I remember the many DU threads on the __"Morans"__ rally in Milwaukee. But the piece is quite convincing. Apparently this pro-war rally was a fake!_
> _Mock Pro-War Rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin_
> _With the anti-war movement in Milwaukee lacking a significant and consistent showing, when the Milwaukee police department tickets motorists who drive by anti-war rally's and honk in support of the protesters, in a time when the war is televised like a sporting event, a small group of Milwaukee artists, musicians, and outcasts decided to stage a mock pro-war rally to subvert the right!_
> _The street theater action was committed on April 4th in near blizzard_
> _conditions when 20 "fanatical pro-war" supporters occupied the opposite side of the downtown street to rally in support of the war and oppose of the peace activists who gather every Friday for the weekly peace vigils._
> _The 20 "pro-war" supporters dressed in suits, waved American Flags, chanted slogans in fierce support of war, death, and killing. Rush hour traffic drove by and honked in approval to the flags and signs that read: "Freedom Is The Enemy", "Get A Brain Morans", "Iraq Out Of Iraq", "Draft My Child", "Send Our Infants", "Soccer Moms For Blood", "War Is Peace", "I'm Pro Life And Pro Death", "Stop Reporting The Facts", "Peace Is For Pussies", "Bush Is The Savior", "This Is No Time For Thinking", "Pro Bush Lesbian", and "Ask Me About My Baby Killing Honor Student" among other slogans._


 
More here: Was the "Moran" guy a prank?

REGARDLESS of whether it was a prank or not, is not the point. The point is, this dispute on whether it was a prank *LONG PRECEDES THE TEA PARTY BY YEARS AND I DO MEAN YEARS!!!!!!!!*

So, it is proved a LIE, thus the rest could be lies.

The onus is on the poster of these pics to prove otherwise. But I think I've exposed him as a liar.


----------



## teapartysamurai

You liberals are going to learn to run away from me and NOT try to lie when I'm around, because you won't get away with it, while I'm in the thread. 

More evidence of what liars liberals are:




> If you've ever read a political blog, you are probably familiar with this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, you probably don't know where he came from, or whether his "Get A Brain! Morans / Go USA" sign is some sort of joke. For one reason or another, various theories have been put forward. Well, I am here to inform you that he is very much real, and he had good company too.
> He was demonstrating at a pro-war counter-protest on March 23, 2003 in St. Louis, Missouri.
> On Sunday, March 23, about 350 pro-peace activists took part in a solemn funeral procession to the Boeing missile factory in St. Charles, MO. A team of civilian weapons inspectors dressed in white overalls demanded to enter the plant to inspect the US weapons of mass destruction that are being produced there. When they were denied entry, they sat down in front of the Boeing gate in protest. Later in the afternoon, 14 civilian weapons inspectors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the Boeing bomb factory. A hostile crowd of roughly 75, flag waving, pro-war protesters showered the silent peace protesters with insults and violent threats, but they were held back by the police. St. Louis Indymedia Center (which has since been reformatted and taken down)
> Here are some of the other counterprotestors, courtesy St. Louis Indymedia Center:


 
More here:

Get A Brain Morans - Everything Shii Knows

Person who posted it as being part of the tea party is a DAMN LIAR.

But that isn't a surprise. How do you know a liberal is lying? When their lips are moving or they are posting on a forum.

'nuff said.



Anyone with half a brain would know he is probably another scumbag liberal "infiltrator" trying to pretend to be a conservative by the long dirty hair and the "do rag."


----------



## teapartysamurai

Same photo posted in 2005

snopes.com: Stupid protester?

No matter how you slice it. Whether the guy was a anti war protestor trying to pose as a pro-war supporter, etc, it was NOT from the tea parties.

Total lie.


----------



## VaYank5150

teapartysamurai said:


> Same photo posted in 2005
> 
> snopes.com: Stupid protester?
> 
> No matter how you slice it. Whether the guy was a anti war protestor trying to pose as a pro-war supporter, etc, it was NOT from the tea parties.
> 
> Total lie.



According to Tea Baggers like Cali-G, the Tea Parties were started under Bush.  2005 falls within these years.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

VaYank5150 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering. AWESOME!
Click to expand...

 
Deceit and Fraud...  It's all they have, kids.

They're operating on nothing but illusion...

We need to get some volunteers for a November Suicide Watch for this Clown...  Preferrably _with *video*_...


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in a nutshell what you are saying is that out of the thousands of photographs taken of Tea Baggers across the country, you believe them all to be faked unless you are supplied with the what, when, where details?  If so, why are you so willing to believe that Obama is a US citizen?  Have you held his birth certificate in your hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, do I have to explain everything to you? Are you honestly mentally challenged or something? I think I posted in English... there is no need for a moron to 'translate' my posts.
> 
> In a nutshell.... you keep throwing these pictures out as evidence. So, tell me when and where they were taken. How hard is that?
> 
> I accept that the Security checks done on Obama were sufficient, unless someone has concrete evidence of something else. I'm not really much on conspiracy theories as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for having this conversation out in the open, Cali.  I believe I have proven my point about you.  Neg rep me again, if you wish, but they were your own words.
Click to expand...


I always have conversations in the open, Va. I think you have actually proven mine. You can't source the pics. You don't know whether they are fake or real and you do not care. Well, some of us would prefer legitimate debate - based on fact - not a bunch of pics from who knows where (except that I do actually know where). You are lazy. You prefer partisan hackery and point scoring than intelligent, sourced debate. The 'sad' person here, is you. 

And.... I don't need your permission to neg you. But, when people use an image without contexting it, or a quote without contexting it, I tend to ask for the source and, if I don't get it, I neg them. They spread lies - you spread lies - unless you know they are legitimate.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same photo posted in 2005
> 
> snopes.com: Stupid protester?
> 
> No matter how you slice it. Whether the guy was a anti war protestor trying to pose as a pro-war supporter, etc, it was NOT from the tea parties.
> 
> Total lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tea Baggers like Cali-G, the Tea Parties were started under Bush.  2005 falls within these years.
Click to expand...


Educate yourself Va.


----------



## Sarah G

Ha!  They don't need to be infiltrated to figure them out.  The party crazies are out there with bullhorns, taking credit for tea party plans..



> A tea party militia? Plans are in the works
> 
> OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> 
> Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> 
> A tea party militia? Plans are in the works | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | National & World News



I saw this guy on Hardball last night.  He was combative but Matthews was rather respectful, trying to get answers out of him.  

One more reason NOT to allow Republicans get the majority.  They're crazy letting these people get front and center.  Where are the good conservatives of days gone by?


----------



## California Girl

Sarah G said:


> Ha!  They don't need to be infiltrated to figure them out.  The party crazies are out there with bullhorns, taking credit for tea party plans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tea party militia? Plans are in the works
> 
> OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> 
> Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> 
> A tea party militia? Plans are in the works | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | National & World News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this guy on Hardball last night.  He was combative but Matthews was rather respectful, trying to get answers out of him.
> 
> One more reason NOT to allow Republicans get the majority.  They're crazy letting these people get front and center.  Where are the good conservatives of days gone by?
Click to expand...


Allow? Really interesting choice of words. Exactly who is 'allowing'? People vote. The outcome is what it is. It is not something that is 'allowed'. 

Let? Another really interesting choice of words. Exactly who is 'letting' other people do what they want to do?

Conclusion: Sarah, you have lost the ability to think as an individual. Get help. No one 'allows' or 'lets' Americans do something. We are not a socialist country - yet.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, do I have to explain everything to you? Are you honestly mentally challenged or something? I think I posted in English... there is no need for a moron to 'translate' my posts.
> 
> In a nutshell.... you keep throwing these pictures out as evidence. So, tell me when and where they were taken. How hard is that?
> 
> I accept that the Security checks done on Obama were sufficient, unless someone has concrete evidence of something else. I'm not really much on conspiracy theories as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for having this conversation out in the open, Cali.  I believe I have proven my point about you.  Neg rep me again, if you wish, but they were your own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always have conversations in the open, Va. I think you have actually proven mine. You can't source the pics. You don't know whether they are fake or real and you do not care. Well, some of us would prefer legitimate debate - based on fact - not a bunch of pics from who knows where (except that I do actually know where). You are lazy. You prefer partisan hackery and point scoring than intelligent, sourced debate. The 'sad' person here, is you.
> 
> And.... I don't need your permission to neg you. But, when people use an image without contexting it, or a quote without contexting it, I tend to ask for the source and, if I don't get it, I neg them. They spread lies - you spread lies - unless you know they are legitimate.
Click to expand...


Pot, kettle.


----------



## rightwinger

CMike said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look to your left.....is he a liberal plant?
> 
> Look to your right......Notice the shoes he is wearing....only a liberal would wear shoes like that
> 
> See that grandmother over there shouting racist slogans?  She must be a liberal
> 
> 
> How do you know who to trust Tea Baggers?  How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you say you were a republican? Didn't jakey claim to be a republican?
Click to expand...


I have been a registered Republican for 30 years and voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times


----------



## rightwinger

ABikerSailor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually her posts are extremely intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.
> 
> They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.
> 
> All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.
> 
> Me?  I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.
Click to expand...


CMike does not live in his mother's basement......

He is a successful Amway salesman


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Souvenirs .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me liberal hypocrites, but how many times did liberals call Bush "chimpy?"
> 
> And make HIM look like a chimp?
> 
> Doesn't that make liberal the racists? Suggesting it's only okay to call a white president a chimp but a black president is off limits?
> 
> TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.
Click to expand...



White people called Bush a Chimp!

So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........


----------



## tigerbob

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause dammit they know I'm hot!
> 
> (runs away fast)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey teabagging pussy, take your bushido elsewhere.
> 
> If you really were a samurai, you would have already performed seppoku because you are a dishonor.
Click to expand...


Such a lame post.


----------



## CMike

rightwinger said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone want to turn political forums into dating sites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because losers like CMike get lonely living in their mother's basements and attics.
> 
> They also tend to gravitate towards whores like California Girl.
> 
> All ya need is some sleazy skank and a bunch of lonely losers.
> 
> Me?  I like to meet mine in the wild, rather than on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CMike does not live in his mother's basement......
> 
> He is a successful Amway salesman
Click to expand...


Actually I have nothing to do with Amway. 

Enjoy those sewers though.


----------



## CMike

rightwinger said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look to your left.....is he a liberal plant?
> 
> Look to your right......Notice the shoes he is wearing....only a liberal would wear shoes like that
> 
> See that grandmother over there shouting racist slogans?  She must be a liberal
> 
> 
> How do you know who to trust Tea Baggers?  How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say you were a republican? Didn't jakey claim to be a republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been a registered Republican for 30 years and voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times
Click to expand...

Yet, I have not seen you once here take anything other than a hard left position?


----------



## rightwinger

CMike said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say you were a republican? Didn't jakey claim to be a republican?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a registered Republican for 30 years and voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, I have not seen you once here take anything other than a hard left position?
Click to expand...


AmwayMike

What does that have to do with being a Republican?

The Republican party exists at all levels of Government. Not all are tied to the radical right-wing imitation that now claims to be the national GOP


----------



## rdean

"The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically."

Except that most of the founding members don't have jobs because they are on Social Security and Medicare.  Cut other peoples revenue, but NOT mine.

What a bunch of crazies.


----------



## Maple

CMike said:


> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It



Yes and here is the founder of all of this. The Official site of " The Nit Wit Liberal Loon Nut Club-------

http://www.examiner.com/x-41774-NY-...Crash-the-Tea-Party-Founder-Outwitted-By-Foes

And now we have a picture, when you read the article notice that he can't spell. LOLOLOL


----------



## Maple

rdean said:


> "The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically."
> 
> Except that most of the founding members don't have jobs because they are on Social Security and Medicare.  Cut other peoples revenue, but NOT mine.
> 
> What a bunch of crazies.



Hellooooooooooooooooooooo Rdean you are right about most not having jobs, but it is not because they are retired it's BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN LAID OFF.  They are a broad cross section of people, young, middle aged and seniors all opposed to the out of control spending that is going on.

Watch Bernake today- warning that if this spending does not come under control in 10 years the deficit will equal over 100% of our GDP. He is testifying before congress today.


----------



## teapartysamurai

VaYank5150 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same photo posted in 2005
> 
> snopes.com: Stupid protester?
> 
> No matter how you slice it. Whether the guy was a anti war protestor trying to pose as a pro-war supporter, etc, it was NOT from the tea parties.
> 
> Total lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Tea Baggers like Cali-G, the Tea Parties were started under Bush. 2005 falls within these years.
Click to expand...

 
Nice try but that photo comes from *2003!*

And I'm sorry the first I EVER heard of the Tea party was 2008/9.

So, I don't know what YOU are talking about.  The first tea parties were April 15 (tax day) 2009.  

You have evidence of a tea party from 2005, BRING IT ON, but lying photos like those I already busted as frauds, aren't going to come close to evidence.

So, I'm sorry, but that photo is an ABSOLUTE LIE.

And if it's a lie, then rest are.  YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED.

Get over it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Souvenirs .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Libruls tryin to make us look bad again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me liberal hypocrites, but how many times did liberals call Bush "chimpy?"
> 
> And make HIM look like a chimp?
> 
> Doesn't that make liberal the racists? Suggesting it's only okay to call a white president a chimp but a black president is off limits?
> 
> TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
Click to expand...

 
Why not?

Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?

THAT'S RACISM.

No different than if I said, you can't call a white person something because he's white!

Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been a registered Republican for 30 years and voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, I have not seen you once here take anything other than a hard left position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AmwayMike
> 
> What does that have to do with being a Republican?
> 
> The Republican party exists at all levels of Government. Not all are tied to the radical right-wing imitation that now claims to be the national GOP
Click to expand...

 
Sure!  There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rdean said:


> "The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically."
> 
> Except that most of the founding members don't have jobs because they are on Social Security and Medicare. Cut other peoples revenue, but NOT mine.
> 
> What a bunch of crazies.


 
I'm on Social Security and Medicare???????

Since when?????????


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me liberal hypocrites, but how many times did liberals call Bush "chimpy?"
> 
> And make HIM look like a chimp?
> 
> Doesn't that make liberal the racists? Suggesting it's only okay to call a white president a chimp but a black president is off limits?
> 
> TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you could call a white person something because he's white?
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
Click to expand...


Yes he does.....

Especially when racists have used images of black people as apes to dehumanize them for centuries. To compare a black person to an ape is reinforcing the image that they are sub human

To call George Bush a Chimp is a commentary on his lack of intellect

It is not the same....never has been


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, I have not seen you once here take anything other than a hard left position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmwayMike
> 
> What does that have to do with being a Republican?
> 
> The Republican party exists at all levels of Government. Not all are tied to the radical right-wing imitation that now claims to be the national GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure!  There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
Click to expand...


Interesting how the GOP eats its own

McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you could call a white person something because he's white?
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he does.....
> 
> Especially when racists have used images of black people as apes to dehumanize them for centuries. To compare a black person to an ape is reinforcing the image that they are sub human
> 
> To call George Bush a Chimp is a commentary on his lack of intellect
> 
> It is not the same....never has been
Click to expand...

 
So what you are saying is, it's OKAY to say Bush is subhman, but it's NOT okay to do so to another president solely because of his skin color.

*Then YOU ARE A RACIST.*

No matter how you slice it, you are still saying it's okay to do one and not another BASED COMPLETELY ON RACE AND SKIN COLOR.

It's both hypocrisy and racism.  But keep trying, you make my point for me.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> AmwayMike
> 
> What does that have to do with being a Republican?
> 
> The Republican party exists at all levels of Government. Not all are tied to the radical right-wing imitation that now claims to be the national GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
Click to expand...

 


'nuff said!  

If McCain was so great, *HOW COME HE LOST POLITICAL GENIUS???????*

Shall we compare that to Reagan who won in a 49 state landslide in 1984?????  

Eat our own my ass.  The only ones trying to eat anything are the moderate MORONS in the Republican party who wish we were the Democrat party.

PSSSSSSSSSSSSSST!  NEWSFLASH POLITICAL GENIOUS.  That's one of the reasons McCain lost, with his buying everyone's mortgages, taxing our health insurance and being for cap and trade.  *WE ALREADY HAVE A DEMOCRAT PARTY.*

If you give voters the choice between Democrat lite and real Democrats voters are going to vote for the real thing.  Why vote for the faux Democrat if you can have the real thing?

Best candidate we ever had.  BWAHAHAHAAAA!


----------



## bucs90

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me liberal hypocrites, but how many times did liberals call Bush "chimpy?"
> 
> And make HIM look like a chimp?
> 
> Doesn't that make liberal the racists? Suggesting it's only okay to call a white president a chimp but a black president is off limits?
> 
> TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you can't call a white person something because he's white!
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
Click to expand...


AAAHHHHHHHHH..........my fellow conservative, you are misguided. I had the misfortune of being a sociology major in college, which allowed me to take Social Problems, along with an array of other politically correct courses, including Racial Sensitivity Issues in our Century.

I'll fill you in: WHITE is not a race. It's a default setting. WHITE has no culture. No history. No special place in society. Hence, one cannot be "racist" for being anti-white. Anti-white is simply being pro-diversity, pro-human rights. See, "white" as a group is sort of like a blank canvas. You can't call a picture beautiful or ugly if there is nothing painted on it. So, once you grasp that ideal, you'll see why racism cannot be directed AT whites, but can often come FROM whites. 

And sadly, the above is not a joke. It was an actual class lecture I recieved in my Social Problems course. And we wonder how our nation got where we are.


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you could call a white person something because he's white?
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does.....
> 
> Especially when racists have used images of black people as apes to dehumanize them for centuries. To compare a black person to an ape is reinforcing the image that they are sub human
> 
> To call George Bush a Chimp is a commentary on his lack of intellect
> 
> It is not the same....never has been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is, it's OKAY to say Bush is subhman, but it's NOT okay to do so to another president solely because of his skin color.
> 
> *Then YOU ARE A RACIST.*
> 
> No matter how you slice it, you are still saying it's okay to do one and not another BASED COMPLETELY ON RACE AND SKIN COLOR.
> 
> It's both hypocrisy and racism.  But keep trying, you make my point for me.
Click to expand...



I like how you use large fonts to try to make a point....doesn't make it any better of a point.

Show me a hundred years of history directed at the Bush family as apes
Show me where the Bush family was enslaved because of their subhuman status
Show me where George Bush was prevented from attending the school of his choice because he was not considered to be as human as the other students.

Not the same......never has been


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'nuff said!
> 
> If McCain was so great, *HOW COME HE LOST POLITICAL GENIUS???????*
> 
> Shall we compare that to Reagan who won in a 49 state landslide in 1984?????
> 
> Eat our own my ass.  The only ones trying to eat anything are the moderate MORONS in the Republican party who wish we were the Democrat party.
> 
> PSSSSSSSSSSSSSST!  NEWSFLASH POLITICAL GENIOUS.  That's one of the reasons McCain lost, with his buying everyone's mortgages, taxing our health insurance and being for cap and trade.  *WE ALREADY HAVE A DEMOCRAT PARTY.*
> 
> If you give voters the choice between Democrat lite and real Democrats voters are going to vote for the real thing.  Why vote for the faux Democrat if you can have the real thing?
> 
> Best candidate we ever had.  BWAHAHAHAAAA!
Click to expand...


Looking up.......My....you really outdid yourself with large fonts this time. It still does not make your point any more valid.

McCain won the Republican primaries in a landslide and had the nomination locked up by February. McCain also has a long and storied record in the Senate and an honorable history representing his state. 
No other Republican candidate had near his credentials or support in 2008. He was your best shot and America sent him packing.
Looking at the list of stiffs being proposed as GOP frontrunners in 2012. There are still none who has the credentials or stature that McCain enjoyed in 2008.

See....I made an argument without using large fonts


----------



## drsmith1072

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet.  Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
Click to expand...


WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?

BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos? 

There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat. Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. 

So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??


----------



## drsmith1072

Pale Rider said:


> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.



WOW, so you will actually attack someone and deny them their right to freedom of speech??


----------



## drsmith1072

Pale Rider said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be obviously inflammatory statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything they have listed here... Crash The Tea Party!
> 
> I guess the thing is, any liberal stupid enough to try this bull shit, better be hoping they aren't lucky enough to be standing beside me when they do.
Click to expand...


LOL that site is hilarious. Is it real or is it tea partiers trying to play the victim and make excuses for their own nutjubs? 

Furthermore, I think it's hilarious that IF true it looks like they are already succeeding at one of their goals. Which is to "propogate their (tea party) propensity for paranoia and suspicion." and based on thread like this you guys seem to be getting really paranoid and suspicious. LOL


----------



## edthecynic

masquerade said:


> Tea Party Maligned
> 
> So what are tea party activists and other decent Americans to do when they are maligned for standing up for what is right? There's only one answer: Give them more of what they hate. Take to the streets again and again! Fight back. Don't let them rob your sons and daughters of another cent. Refuse to let* the bullies *intimidate you.
> 
> *The liberal elite and social engineers* are trying to silence the cries of decent, hard-working Americans that have had enough. And they are doing it with good old-fashioned *name-calling.* It's the oldest, dirtiest, laziest trick in the book


See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## edthecynic

California Girl said:


> The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left,* they aren't smart enough  to keep it off public forums.* Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it.
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.


Now wait just a minute there Slick. You CON$ have been accusing Libs of infiltrating tea bag mobs for a year now. Why would they suddenly have to recruit in public????

Obviously you CON$ are pretending to be Libs recruiting infiltrators so you will have a scapegoat for all the Nazi racist hate signs typically found at your hate America rallies.


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme? Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it. Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant. In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.


 
First thing YOU need to do is get rid of that _Hard-On_ you have for Limbaugh.


----------



## edthecynic

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people.  They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work.  Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives.  They will be easy to spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet.  Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
Click to expand...

Gee, If the Libs have been  able to "plant" people in the past without recruiting, why would they suddenly have to publicly recruit "plants" now????

Something smells like Op Chaos False Flag operatives at work!!!


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering. AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we see the fear mongering in all the lies the liberals have been trying to use to smear the tea party movement.
Click to expand...

 

Exactly correct. They blame these movements for the 'fear mongering', but what they fail to tell you is whom are really afraid of them.


----------



## edthecynic

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme? Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it. Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant. In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First thing YOU need to do is *get rid of that Hard-On you have for Limbaugh*.
Click to expand...

Obvious "projection." 
After all, you worship your MessiahRushie enough to pay for 24/7 access to his lies.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Great potoshopped images!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The T

edthecynic said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering is, which rightwingers organized the 'leftists are going to infiltrate the tea party' scheme? Sounds very Limbaugh-esque to me.
> 
> We get it. Now you can blame all misbehaviour at Tea Party rallies on liberals, and you've manufactured a preliiminary poison the well campaign to support it.
> 
> Gee, you people are so brilliant. In Retardsylvania, you could be kings and queens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First thing YOU need to do is *get rid of that Hard-On you have for Limbaugh*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obvious "projection."
> After all, you worship your MessiahRushie enough to pay for 24/7 access to his lies.
Click to expand...

 
Truth hurts some here...as exhibited by the above post.


----------



## The T

VaYank5150 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its all part of a sinister plot to get Tea Baggers to turn on each other as they try to root out liberal infiltrators from their midst.
> 
> Almost like an episode of the Twilight Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evidence of how scared liberals are of the American people. They tried to smear them and when that didn't work, *they think they can now create false images of the tea partiers*.
> 
> It won't work. Liberals are too stupid to act like real conservatives. They will be easy to spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet. Noone need create anything.
Click to expand...

 
You mean "_Actual PHOTOSHOPPED Images" don't you?_


----------



## edthecynic

drsmith1072 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet.  Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
Click to expand...

I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.


----------



## teapartysamurai

bucs90 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you can't call a white person something because he's white!
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AAAHHHHHHHHH..........my fellow conservative, you are misguided. I had the misfortune of being a sociology major in college, which allowed me to take Social Problems, along with an array of other politically correct courses, including Racial Sensitivity Issues in our Century.
> 
> I'll fill you in: WHITE is not a race. It's a default setting. WHITE has no culture. No history. No special place in society. Hence, one cannot be "racist" for being anti-white. Anti-white is simply being pro-diversity, pro-human rights. See, "white" as a group is sort of like a blank canvas. You can't call a picture beautiful or ugly if there is nothing painted on it. So, once you grasp that ideal, you'll see why racism cannot be directed AT whites, but can often come FROM whites.
> 
> And sadly, the above is not a joke. It was an actual class lecture I recieved in my Social Problems course. And we wonder how our nation got where we are.
Click to expand...

 
Problem is, by that argument then black isn't a race.  Since it has more than one origin.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does.....
> 
> Especially when racists have used images of black people as apes to dehumanize them for centuries. To compare a black person to an ape is reinforcing the image that they are sub human
> 
> To call George Bush a Chimp is a commentary on his lack of intellect
> 
> It is not the same....never has been
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is, it's OKAY to say Bush is subhman, but it's NOT okay to do so to another president solely because of his skin color.
> 
> *Then YOU ARE A RACIST.*
> 
> No matter how you slice it, you are still saying it's okay to do one and not another BASED COMPLETELY ON RACE AND SKIN COLOR.
> 
> It's both hypocrisy and racism. But keep trying, you make my point for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you use large fonts to try to make a point....doesn't make it any better of a point.
> 
> Show me a hundred years of history directed at the Bush family as apes
> Show me where the Bush family was enslaved because of their subhuman status
> Show me where George Bush was prevented from attending the school of his choice because he was not considered to be as human as the other students.
> 
> Not the same......never has been
Click to expand...

 
Pal *MY* family was enslaved to the British during the Irish Potato Famine.

My orginal Ancestor in this country was a Delaware Indian Chief who was kicked out of his tribe for becoming a Christian.

You want to know what the whites called HIM??????

I am sure if you go back in Bush's family line you will find equal mistreatment by another race.

I hate to break it to you libs, but blacks are not the only race that has EVER been mistreated, enslaved, had their land taken from then etc.

So, I'm sorry, it doesn't wash.

If it is wrong to call Obama chimp, then it's wrong for Bush, and vice versa.

If liberals thought it was okay for Bush to be called chimpy, then boo freaking hoo liberals, but then it's okay to call Obama.

Boo freaking hoo, but we don't bow to your double standards.


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'nuff said!
> 
> If McCain was so great, *HOW COME HE LOST POLITICAL GENIUS???????*
> 
> Shall we compare that to Reagan who won in a 49 state landslide in 1984?????
> 
> Eat our own my ass. The only ones trying to eat anything are the moderate MORONS in the Republican party who wish we were the Democrat party.
> 
> PSSSSSSSSSSSSSST! NEWSFLASH POLITICAL GENIOUS. That's one of the reasons McCain lost, with his buying everyone's mortgages, taxing our health insurance and being for cap and trade. *WE ALREADY HAVE A DEMOCRAT PARTY.*
> 
> If you give voters the choice between Democrat lite and real Democrats voters are going to vote for the real thing. Why vote for the faux Democrat if you can have the real thing?
> 
> Best candidate we ever had. BWAHAHAHAAAA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking up.......My....you really outdid yourself with large fonts this time. It still does not make your point any more valid.
> 
> McCain won the Republican primaries in a landslide and had the nomination locked up by February. McCain also has a long and storied record in the Senate and an honorable history representing his state.
> No other Republican candidate had near his credentials or support in 2008. He was your best shot and America sent him packing.
> Looking at the list of stiffs being proposed as GOP frontrunners in 2012. There are still none who has the credentials or stature that McCain enjoyed in 2008.
> 
> See....I made an argument without using large fonts
Click to expand...

 


McCain LOST!  Credential that!


----------



## CMike

bucs90 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> White people called Bush a Chimp!
> 
> So that means I get to call black people chimps now.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you can't call a white person something because he's white!
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AAAHHHHHHHHH..........my fellow conservative, you are misguided. I had the misfortune of being a sociology major in college, which allowed me to take Social Problems, along with an array of other politically correct courses, including Racial Sensitivity Issues in our Century.
> 
> I'll fill you in: WHITE is not a race. It's a default setting. WHITE has no culture. No history. No special place in society. Hence, one cannot be "racist" for being anti-white. Anti-white is simply being pro-diversity, pro-human rights. See, "white" as a group is sort of like a blank canvas. You can't call a picture beautiful or ugly if there is nothing painted on it. So, once you grasp that ideal, you'll see why racism cannot be directed AT whites, but can often come FROM whites.
> 
> And sadly, the above is not a joke. It was an actual class lecture I recieved in my Social Problems course. And we wonder how our nation got where we are.
Click to expand...


How do people come up with this shit?


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACTUAL images of the Tea Baggers are all over the Internet. Noone need create anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat. Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found.
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
Click to expand...

 
Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party.  If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.

Discredited, fail!

Get over it.


----------



## Modbert

I wonder if some of the more whacked out loons at USMB would repeat what they spew at USMB in real life in front of their coworkers or family and friends. 

Kind of like how it goes with the truthers, birthers, racists, sexists, etc.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so you will actually attack someone and deny them their right to freedom of speech??
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, liberals acting as plants to try and discredit the tea party by deliberately lying and pretending to be racists, etc.

THAT'S NOT ATTACKING FREEDOM OF SPEECH?????

I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU HYPOCRITES BUT LIBERALS HAD A FIT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DID THIS!

Any of you genius old enough to remember the CIA etc infiltrating left wing groups to find out if they were up to criminal behavior (and a lot of time they were)

(See John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers discussing the plot to murder Senators that supported Vietnam).

Liberals had a FIT about that. But now it's OKAY??????????? 

ANY OF YOU MORONS REMEMBER NIXON? WATERGATE???????

Good Lord liberals are hypocrites.


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
Click to expand...

 
Oh BULL you did!

You showed a video that has the guy WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner, and you wouldn't even know he was there, except the camera man was give the heads up to film him.

Try again.


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
Click to expand...

 
I posted this which proves those photos ARE FRAUDS!  And I'm going to keep posting it, until you moronic liberals get it through your heads your smear is a collosal fail. 

If one photo is totally bogus then they are all suspect, *AND I HAVE YET TO SEE A LIBERAL EVEN TRY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR LEGITIMACY.* 

You liberals are going to learn to run away from me and NOT try to lie when I'm around, because you won't get away with it, while I'm in the thread. 

More evidence of what liars liberals are:




> If you've ever read a political blog, you are probably familiar with this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, you probably don't know where he came from, or whether his "Get A Brain! Morans / Go USA" sign is some sort of joke. For one reason or another, various theories have been put forward. Well, I am here to inform you that he is very much real, and he had good company too.
> He was demonstrating at a pro-war counter-protest on March 23, 2003 in St. Louis, Missouri.
> On Sunday, March 23, about 350 pro-peace activists took part in a solemn funeral procession to the Boeing missile factory in St. Charles, MO. A team of civilian weapons inspectors dressed in white overalls demanded to enter the plant to inspect the US weapons of mass destruction that are being produced there. When they were denied entry, they sat down in front of the Boeing gate in protest. Later in the afternoon, 14 civilian weapons inspectors were arrested for blocking the entrance to the Boeing bomb factory. A hostile crowd of roughly 75, flag waving, pro-war protesters showered the silent peace protesters with insults and violent threats, but they were held back by the police. St. Louis Indymedia Center (which has since been reformatted and taken down)
> Here are some of the other counterprotestors, courtesy St. Louis Indymedia Center:


 
More here:

Get A Brain Morans - Everything Shii Knows

Person who posted it as being part of the tea party is a DAMN LIAR.

But that isn't a surprise. How do you know a liberal is lying? When their lips are moving or they are posting on a forum.

'nuff said.



Anyone with half a brain would know he is probably another scumbag liberal "infiltrator" trying to pretend to be a conservative by the long dirty hair and the "do rag."


----------



## CMike

Isn't photoshop great?


----------



## The T

CMike said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Are you saying Obama because of his skin color gets a special out?
> 
> THAT'S RACISM.
> 
> No different than if I said, you can't call a white person something because he's white!
> 
> Nice try but liberals who live by bashing Bush, die by trying to play a double standard in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AAAHHHHHHHHH..........my fellow conservative, you are misguided. I had the misfortune of being a sociology major in college, which allowed me to take Social Problems, along with an array of other politically correct courses, including Racial Sensitivity Issues in our Century.
> 
> I'll fill you in: WHITE is not a race. It's a default setting. WHITE has no culture. No history. No special place in society. Hence, one cannot be "racist" for being anti-white. Anti-white is simply being pro-diversity, pro-human rights. See, "white" as a group is sort of like a blank canvas. You can't call a picture beautiful or ugly if there is nothing painted on it. So, once you grasp that ideal, you'll see why racism cannot be directed AT whites, but can often come FROM whites.
> 
> And sadly, the above is not a joke. It was an actual class lecture I recieved in my Social Problems course. And we wonder how our nation got where we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do people come up with this shit?
Click to expand...

 
Really. WHITE is the 'Default' Setting? Good God...get the nets...


----------



## The T

CMike said:


> Isn't photoshop great?


 
For them? Yes. It is great for them to win...because they cannot any other way. They FAIL in the arena of Ideals. They are the ones that are afraid and will do anything by hook/crook to gain power.

Call them for what they are. They are LIARS. It's that simple.


----------



## teapartysamurai

The T said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't photoshop great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For them? Yes. It is great for them to win...because they cannot any other way. They FAIL in the arena of Ideals. They are the ones that are afraid and will do anything by hook/crook to gain power.
> 
> Call them for what they are. They are LIARS. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

 
They photoshopped pictures of Condi Rice.  They photoshopped pictures of Lebanon (Little Green Footballs broke that one)

They fabricated National Guard records for Bush.  The Downing Street Memos turned out to be fabricated and phony.

The Yellowcake from Niger turned out to be true, Joe Wilson turned out to be false.

And then there is who outed Valerie Plame, which was NOT Karl Rove, but Richard Armitage.

Liberals couldn't fight honestly if they tried.  They can't, because they are bereft of anything close to the truth.  They just want power and control, and see us in the way of that.

Thus, they feel justified in ANYTHING they do to try and lie, discredit and smear.  The end justifies the means with them.

You have to know this about liberals.  I wish idiots on our "side" like John "reach across the aisle" McCain would figure this out.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interestingly enough, those signs have been seen on the news in MANY places.......

CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC..............Jon Stewart...........just to name a few.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, those signs have been seen on the news in MANY places.......
> 
> CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC..............Jon Stewart...........just to name a few.


 
So now you know why those outlets are losing viewership while Fox News keeps increasing.

People are smart enough to know when they are being lied to.

At least some people.  Those that aren't voted for Obama.


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, those signs have been seen on the news in MANY places.......
> 
> CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC..............Jon Stewart...........just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know why those outlets are losing viewership while Fox News keeps increasing.
> 
> People are smart enough to know when they are being lied to.
> 
> At least some people.  Those that aren't voted for Obama.
Click to expand...


Yo.......Teabagging Toothpick........try again.  It's been proven REPEATEDLY that FAUX Noise has manipulated their newscasts and told outright bullshit.

One of which was Billo the Clown saying that nobody on his network has ever stated that the healthcare bill would put people in jail who didn't have insurance.

It doesn't by the way, but MANY (Beck, Billo the Forgetful, Hannity......) did say just that thing.

With that as a track record, why do you believe them?  What's the matter, you don't have 2 synapses to rub together?


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't photoshop great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For them? Yes. It is great for them to win...because they cannot any other way. They FAIL in the arena of Ideals. They are the ones that are afraid and will do anything by hook/crook to gain power.
> 
> Call them for what they are. They are LIARS. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They photoshopped pictures of Condi Rice. They photoshopped pictures of Lebanon (Little Green Footballs broke that one)
> 
> They fabricated National Guard records for Bush. The Downing Street Memos turned out to be fabricated and phony.
> 
> The Yellowcake from Niger turned out to be true, Joe Wilson turned out to be false.
> 
> And then there is who outed Valerie Plame, which was NOT Karl Rove, but Richard Armitage.
> 
> Liberals couldn't fight honestly if they tried. They can't, because they are bereft of anything close to the truth. They just want power and control, and see us in the way of that.
> 
> Thus, they feel justified in ANYTHING they do to try and lie, discredit and smear. The end justifies the means with them.
> 
> You have to know this about liberals. I wish idiots on our "side" like John "reach across the aisle" McCain would figure this out.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. McCain needs to GO. (I support his opposition...meaning J.D. Hayworth).

God Bless McCain for his Military service...but as a 'Conservative'? he fails.

Oh and you libs that really want to know what a 'NEOCON' is? Look no further than McCain. [You may tack on Lindsey Grahamnesity to the fray].

These people aren't Republicans...they're _Repubicans._

I've seen more trumped-up horseshit regarding the tea Party on these pages from our Liberal Sisters/Brothers than most. 

Sad they belive their own LIES.


----------



## FA_Q2

Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts.  Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing.  Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING.  There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left.  There will always be a few here and there.  The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes.  I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement.  That is partisan hackery at its finest.  IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions.  The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.

Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason.  The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.  Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack.  If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy.  It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, those signs have been seen on the news in MANY places.......
> 
> CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC..............Jon Stewart...........just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know why those outlets are losing viewership while Fox News keeps increasing.
> 
> People are smart enough to know when they are being lied to.
> 
> At least some people. Those that aren't voted for Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo.......Teabagging Toothpick........try again. It's been proven REPEATEDLY that FAUX Noise has manipulated their newscasts and told outright bullshit.
> 
> One of which was Billo the Clown saying that nobody on his network has ever stated that the healthcare bill would put people in jail who didn't have insurance.
> 
> It doesn't by the way, but MANY (Beck, Billo the Forgetful, Hannity......) did say just that thing.
> 
> With that as a track record, why do you believe them? What's the matter, you don't have 2 synapses to rub together?
Click to expand...

 

Yeah Yeah Yeah, keep on ranting, but the ratings don't lie.



And when you have any evidence for that rant, let me know.


----------



## teapartysamurai

FA_Q2 said:


> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts. Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing. Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING. There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left. There will always be a few here and there. The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes. I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement. That is partisan hackery at its finest. IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions. The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason. The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase. Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack. If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy. It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.


----------



## ABikerSailor

FA_Q2 said:


> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts.  Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing.  Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING.  There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left.  There will always be a few here and there.  The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes.  I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement.  That is partisan hackery at its finest.  IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions.  The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason.  The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.  Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack.  If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy.  It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.



Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.

What?  Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts. Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing. Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING. There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left. There will always be a few here and there. The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes. I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement. That is partisan hackery at its finest. IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions. The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason. The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase. Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack. If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy. It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What? Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
Click to expand...

 
This, children, is the difference between class and having no class whatsoever.

Liberals seldom do have any class, and if they do, it's usually just a facade to hide their true intentions.

In this case, he doesn't even TRY to hide his lack of class.

Have to post it again. This Youtube is for those without class.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_tELkI0vbU"]YouTube - "I'm A Danger To Myself and Others"[/ame]


----------



## FA_Q2

ABikerSailor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts.  Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing.  Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING.  There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left.  There will always be a few here and there.  The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes.  I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement.  That is partisan hackery at its finest.  IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions.  The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason.  The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.  Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack.  If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy.  It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What?  Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
Click to expand...


Just proves the point I was making.


----------



## teapartysamurai

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts. Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing. Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING. There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left. There will always be a few here and there. The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes. I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement. That is partisan hackery at its finest. IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions. The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason. The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase. Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack. If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy. It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What? Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
Click to expand...

 
You are so very right.  Sad.  You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class.  And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.


----------



## The T

ABikerSailor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts. Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing. Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING. There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left. There will always be a few here and there. The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes. I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement. That is partisan hackery at its finest. IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions. The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason. The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase. Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack. If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy. It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What? Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
Click to expand...

 
Thank you for illustrating the point. And NO you don't get a fee.


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What? Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so very right.  Sad.  You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class.  And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
Click to expand...


Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.

Try again assholes.


----------



## The T

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very right. Sad. You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class. And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
Click to expand...

 
Translation: "_I'm gunning for YOU California Girl, and I can't think of anything else to say but to further illustrate the points of others in my loser rhetoric..."_


----------



## CMike

teapartysamurai said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't photoshop great?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For them? Yes. It is great for them to win...because they cannot any other way. They FAIL in the arena of Ideals. They are the ones that are afraid and will do anything by hook/crook to gain power.
> 
> Call them for what they are. They are LIARS. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They photoshopped pictures of Condi Rice.  They photoshopped pictures of Lebanon (Little Green Footballs broke that one)
> 
> They fabricated National Guard records for Bush.  The Downing Street Memos turned out to be fabricated and phony.
> 
> The Yellowcake from Niger turned out to be true, Joe Wilson turned out to be false.
> 
> And then there is who outed Valerie Plame, which was NOT Karl Rove, but Richard Armitage.
> 
> Liberals couldn't fight honestly if they tried.  They can't, because they are bereft of anything close to the truth.  They just want power and control, and see us in the way of that.
> 
> Thus, they feel justified in ANYTHING they do to try and lie, discredit and smear.  The end justifies the means with them.
> 
> You have to know this about liberals.  I wish idiots on our "side" like John "reach across the aisle" McCain would figure this out.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is completely based on lies and deception.

They can never compete based on ideas as you say.


----------



## rightwinger

teapartysamurai said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'nuff said!
> 
> If McCain was so great, *HOW COME HE LOST POLITICAL GENIUS???????*
> 
> Shall we compare that to Reagan who won in a 49 state landslide in 1984?????
> 
> Eat our own my ass. The only ones trying to eat anything are the moderate MORONS in the Republican party who wish we were the Democrat party.
> 
> PSSSSSSSSSSSSSST! NEWSFLASH POLITICAL GENIOUS. That's one of the reasons McCain lost, with his buying everyone's mortgages, taxing our health insurance and being for cap and trade. *WE ALREADY HAVE A DEMOCRAT PARTY.*
> 
> If you give voters the choice between Democrat lite and real Democrats voters are going to vote for the real thing. Why vote for the faux Democrat if you can have the real thing?
> 
> Best candidate we ever had. BWAHAHAHAAAA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking up.......My....you really outdid yourself with large fonts this time. It still does not make your point any more valid.
> 
> McCain won the Republican primaries in a landslide and had the nomination locked up by February. McCain also has a long and storied record in the Senate and an honorable history representing his state.
> No other Republican candidate had near his credentials or support in 2008. He was your best shot and America sent him packing.
> Looking at the list of stiffs being proposed as GOP frontrunners in 2012. There are still none who has the credentials or stature that McCain enjoyed in 2008.
> 
> See....I made an argument without using large fonts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain LOST!  Credential that!
Click to expand...


Good point.....McCain did lose and he lost badly

He was still the best candidate the Republicans had to offer. What does that tell you about GOP chances in 2012?  You still lack a candidate as qualified as McCain and the only candidate with the name recognition of McCain is Palin

I dare you to run Palin in 2012


----------



## CMike

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts.  Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing.  Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING.  There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left.  There will always be a few here and there.  The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes.  I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement.  That is partisan hackery at its finest.  IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions.  The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason.  The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.  Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack.  If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy.  It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What?  Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
Click to expand...

 Exactly right and it shows how liberals lack class.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.

I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.

Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".


----------



## The T

ABikerSailor said:


> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".


 
Your posts belie this post. You are a Seminar poster.


----------



## The T

CMike said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What? Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly right and it shows how liberals lack class.
Click to expand...

 
They lack more than class.


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking up.......My....you really outdid yourself with large fonts this time. It still does not make your point any more valid.
> 
> McCain won the Republican primaries in a landslide and had the nomination locked up by February. McCain also has a long and storied record in the Senate and an honorable history representing his state.
> No other Republican candidate had near his credentials or support in 2008. He was your best shot and America sent him packing.
> Looking at the list of stiffs being proposed as GOP frontrunners in 2012. There are still none who has the credentials or stature that McCain enjoyed in 2008.
> 
> See....I made an argument without using large fonts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain LOST! Credential that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.....McCain did lose and he lost badly
> 
> *He was still the best candidate the Republicans had to offer.* What does that tell you about GOP chances in 2012? You still lack a candidate as qualified as McCain and the only candidate with the name recognition of McCain is Palin
> 
> I dare you to run Palin in 2012
Click to expand...

 
Wrong. He wasn't. Which shows that open primaries are FLAWED.


----------



## rightwinger

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> McCain LOST! Credential that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.....McCain did lose and he lost badly
> 
> *He was still the best candidate the Republicans had to offer.* What does that tell you about GOP chances in 2012? You still lack a candidate as qualified as McCain and the only candidate with the name recognition of McCain is Palin
> 
> I dare you to run Palin in 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. He wasn't. Which shows that open primaries are FLAWED.
Click to expand...


McCain buried his competition on Super Tuesday and locked up the nomination by February 2008.  If you don't like open primaries with actual Republicans voting...take it up with the GOP
You have the same problem in 2012. An open primary system with nothing but losers running


----------



## CMike

The T said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and it shows how liberals lack class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lack more than class.
Click to expand...

 True. Ethics. Morality. Etc.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Right.........like the GOP has a lock on those values...........

Ensign, Larry Craig, C Street.............

Try again Cumguzzler Mike.


----------



## CMike

ABikerSailor said:


> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".



This is clearly shows how dishonest and unethical liberals.

Here we have some of the most left posters here, this douchebag and the Sewer Worker Winger, who claim to be republicans, but have taken the most hard line left positions.

I have a question for my fellow righties. 

Have you ever seen this douche bag or sewer worker winger take a republican position on this forum ever?


----------



## ABikerSailor

CMike said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly shows how dishonest and unethical liberals.
> 
> Here we have some of the most left posters here, this douchebag and the Sewer Worker Winger, who claim to be republicans, but have taken the most hard line left positions.
> 
> I have a question for my fellow righties.
> 
> Have you ever seen this douche bag or sewer worker winger take a republican position on this forum ever?
Click to expand...


You know........in 2004, after Bush Jr had fucked over this country, I decided right then and there that I would never support a Republican again.

I also was less than enthusiastic about the ones on the right as well.

When I saw that politics had become so blended, I decided I would never again vote a straight party ticket.

Now, I'm an Independent, because BOTH SIDES have their problems.

Only a rhetoric driven hack would fail to see the difference Cumguzzler Mike.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very right. Sad. You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class. And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
Click to expand...

 
Not only no class, but a stalker.

Someone is protesting too much!


----------



## teapartysamurai

The T said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very right. Sad. You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class. And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "_I'm gunning for YOU California Girl, and I can't think of anything else to say but to further illustrate the points of others in my loser rhetoric..."_
Click to expand...

 
I think he's got a thing for her, but know's she's unaproachable.  I had my share of guys who behaved like that to me in my *ahem* single years. 

The sad thing is this approach actually works on some girls.  (not all girls are that bright)

(and don't worry guys, I've been married 21 years, my single days are LOOOONG past  )


----------



## teapartysamurai

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking up.......My....you really outdid yourself with large fonts this time. It still does not make your point any more valid.
> 
> McCain won the Republican primaries in a landslide and had the nomination locked up by February. McCain also has a long and storied record in the Senate and an honorable history representing his state.
> No other Republican candidate had near his credentials or support in 2008. He was your best shot and America sent him packing.
> Looking at the list of stiffs being proposed as GOP frontrunners in 2012. There are still none who has the credentials or stature that McCain enjoyed in 2008.
> 
> See....I made an argument without using large fonts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCain LOST! Credential that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.....McCain did lose and he lost badly
> 
> He was still the best candidate the Republicans had to offer. What does that tell you about GOP chances in 2012? You still lack a candidate as qualified as McCain and the only candidate with the name recognition of McCain is Palin
> 
> I dare you to run Palin in 2012
Click to expand...

 
Might I remind you Nixon/Ford/Dole/McCain Rockefeller Republicans that you all had the same attitude toward Ronald Reagan in 1976.

Guess who got the last laugh?


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".


 
Yeah yeah yeah.  I wish I had that old Rush Limbaugh parody to post:

"Repeat after me:  'I love your show, and I always agree you, and I voted for Bush.'"  

If I had a DIME for every liberal who told me that load of bull.  

Your actions in attacking everyone around here with your vile language and your vile behavior, puts the lie to your claims without me having to say a word.


----------



## teapartysamurai

CMike said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly shows how dishonest and unethical liberals.
> 
> Here we have some of the most left posters here, this douchebag and the Sewer Worker Winger, who claim to be republicans, but have taken the most hard line left positions.
> 
> I have a question for my fellow righties.
> 
> Have you ever seen this douche bag or sewer worker winger take a republican position on this forum ever?
Click to expand...

 
Mike he isn't even worth our time.

I'm sorry myself I even spoke to him.  Don't let him drag us down with his bad behavior and vile language.

I think we all should put him on ignore.   He's proved to be not worth our time.


----------



## Dr Grump

teapartysamurai said:


> Might I remind you Nixon/Ford/Dole/McCain Rockefeller Republicans that you all had the same attitude toward Ronald Reagan in 1976.
> 
> Guess who got the last laugh?



Raygun got the last laugh, because I distinctly remember him being laughed at by most outside the US because he came across as a buffoon. It's funny how time 'rehabilitates' him as the saviour of the GoP and people get all melancholic about him. When I heard that doctors believe that last couple of years of office might have been affected by Alzheimer's, I for one, wasn't sitting there going "Oh,my God! Really!". In fact it put me at ease. It was good to think that some of his actions were not that of a rational person....


----------



## edthecynic

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh BULL you did!
> 
> You showed a video that has the guy WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner, and you wouldn't even know he was there, except the camera man was give the heads up to film him.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

If by WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner you mean right on stage with the speakers where you couldn't miss him and with the sign in plain sight, then you would be right. 



Xenophon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Malkin  Crash course: Your illustrated guide to the Tea Party saboteurs
> 
> Liberals never could debate honestly.  They know if they do, they lose.  Their ideas just don't hold up against honest debate.  So, they smear.
> 
> It's not about honesty or facts.  It's about one thing with them, CONTROL.
> 
> Any challenge to that is going to be met with every scorched earth tatic they can spew.
> 
> The first trick of fighting liberalism is to know that.
> 
> I wish the "non partisan, can we all get along, I will reach across the aisle" RINOs would figure this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's noted right-wing shill Michelle Malkin posing with the "Swastika Guy," owing to the sign he carried right onto the stage with State Senator Josh Penry, Congressman Mike Coffman, Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams, State Senator Dave Schultheis, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Independence Institute president Jon Caldara, among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malkin talked SPECIFICALLY about that picture in the linked article, the guy was a plant who hid the sign from her, but displayed it too a cameraman who was with him while he took the picture, from the linked article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I speak from direct experience about the underhandedness of Tea Party smear merchants. On February 17, 2009 at one of the country&#8217;s first tax revolt rallies in Denver, a man approached me amid a throng of bona fide anti-stimulus protesters and thrust a camera in my face. I obliged cheerfully, as I usually do after such speaking events. I later learned from the character assassins at Progress Now, the Soros-backed outfit that just happened to be there and just happened to snap a close-up photo of the interaction, which was immediately disseminated to the local press and to the hitmen of Media Matters,* that the man pulled out a sign at the last minute (which I didn&#8217;t see until later) sporting Obama&#8217;s name with a swastika on it. He held the sign away from me, but in direct view of the Progress Now cameraperson who used to work for CNN*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had been on this messageboard longer you would have known I would never say there was a YouTube video if I couldn't produce it. Obviously I was hoping someone would still try to defend her and you came through earlier saying the sign was photoshopped. Thank you sucker.
> 
> As you can see he is right in front on the stage when the camera pans back at around the 17 minute mark and again at the 20 minute mark holding the sign in plain sight the whole time, next to the guy with the socialist sign that makes the O in Obama out of a hammer and sickle neither of whom were asked to leave the stage, and you see Malkin pose with him at the very end. He was a welcome guest on stage the whole time by every teabagger there.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7GZtKY5XR0&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He's way over in the corner.*  The only reason the camera man knew he was there is he is helping him in this scheme.
> 
> Give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Malkin is over in the same "corner" one person away from him. Which means when she finished her speech at the dais and walked to her place almost next to him, she walked DIRECTLY towards him with him holding the sign in plain sight, putting the lie to her denial and making a toady of you.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


----------



## edthecynic

teapartysamurai said:


> Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party. * If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.*
> 
> Discredited, fail!
> 
> Get over it.


In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.

Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.

N-Word Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader  The Washington Independent





Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo  taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston

Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Dr Grump said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I remind you Nixon/Ford/Dole/McCain Rockefeller Republicans that you all had the same attitude toward Ronald Reagan in 1976.
> 
> Guess who got the last laugh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raygun got the last laugh, because I distinctly remember him being laughed at by most outside the US because he came across as a buffoon. It's funny how time 'rehabilitates' him as the saviour of the GoP and people get all melancholic about him. When I heard that doctors believe that last couple of years of office might have been affected by Alzheimer's, I for one, wasn't sitting there going "Oh,my God! Really!". In fact it put me at ease. It was good to think that some of his actions were not that of a rational person....
Click to expand...


You know.........there is something that I've always wondered about Raygun.

He had access to the LaGuardia report (commissioned by Nixon), as well as access to the science experiments conducted by the CIA concerning cannabis.

It proved that it helps a great deal with Alzheimer's disease.

Why did the stupid fucker keep up the "just say no" campaign?


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah.  I wish I had that old Rush Limbaugh parody to post:
> 
> "Repeat after me:  'I love your show, and I always agree you, and I voted for Bush.'"
> 
> If I had a DIME for every liberal who told me that load of bull.
> 
> Your actions in attacking everyone around here with your vile language and your vile behavior, puts the lie to your claims without me having to say a word.
Click to expand...


Do I believe in big government?  No.  People need to take as much responsibility for themselves as possible.

Do I believe in more taxes?  No.  People (and this includes the rich ass CEO's and Wall St. types) should pay 5 percent of what they make.  Corporations included, because Exxon made a shitpot of money and paid zero cents to America.

Do I believe that cannabis should be legal?  Yes.  I guess that makes me a liberal.

Do I believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed?  Yes.  I served in the military for 20 years and I think it's a stupid rule.  I guess that makes me a liberal.

Do I believe gays should be allowed to marry?  Yes.  Yeshua said "love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".  Gender was NOT specified.  I guess that makes me a liberal as well.

I served 20 years in 4 war zones in the defense of this country.  What have YOU done for America Teabagger Shoo Fly?


----------



## California Girl

The T said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very right. Sad. You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class. And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "_I'm gunning for YOU California Girl, and I can't think of anything else to say but to further illustrate the points of others in my loser rhetoric..."_
Click to expand...


AGaySailor has 'issues' with me. His obsession is noted, and for the most part, ignored. Little people are not worthy adversaries. They're too easy to make look foolish.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Thus says the snarky GOP whore.


----------



## California Girl

edthecynic said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
Click to expand...


The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp? 

To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.


----------



## Si modo

ABikerSailor said:


> Thus says the snarky GOP whore.


Funny, she loathes the GOP.  I know, I am a registered Republican and she and I are pals.


----------



## ABikerSailor

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
Click to expand...


The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.

Rich.


----------



## California Girl

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so very right. Sad. You came off with class, and he answered with a total contrast from that class. And the sad part is, I bet it doesn't even occur to him, he made your point for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only no class, but a stalker.
> 
> Someone is protesting too much!
Click to expand...


Tea, my advice on AGaySailor.... ignore him. The guy is mentally challenged.... drugs. Let it slide.... he just embarrasses himself with absolutely no help from anyone. Even the liberals laugh at him.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
Click to expand...


So, let me get this straight.....because someone you claim is a "left winger" shot the video, the video is no longer evidence???


----------



## Vanquish

ABikerSailor said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.
> 
> Rich.
Click to expand...


No...wait...she has super secret information from special sources that only writers know!! ha ha ha. And this info can't be debunked....until she posts it here.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Vanquish said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.
> 
> Rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...wait...she has super secret information from special sources that only writers know!! ha ha ha. And this info can't be debunked....until she posts it here.
Click to expand...


Proof that FAUX news creates black holes of idiocy in people.

Unfortunately, she's collapsed all the way, no light can escape her sucking stupidity.


----------



## drsmith1072

edthecynic said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
Click to expand...


Yeah I know I saw the video and if I remember correctly at about 17 minutes in the guy with the swastika sign was on the left side of the stage holding said sign in plain view. 

one of the delusional right wing nutjobs tried to claim that because this sign was facing the cameras (and the crowd) like the rest of the signs being held on stage that it's proof that he was a plant. LOL 

BTW I am still waiting on you right wing hacks to prove that ALL of the nutjobs at tea party events were plants. Do you ahve the proof or not??


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove that these 'actual' signs are 'actual' signs. In order to verify that they are legitimate TEA Partiers and not plants from the left. And.... while you're at it, provide the event, date, time, location for each of these 'actual' signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat. Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found.
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party.  If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.
> 
> Discredited, fail!
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...


LOL Excuse me but your OPINION that becuase one isn't real then the rest are suspect is NOT proof that ALL are not of the tea party. I thought you were all about honest debate and yet it appears that you can't engage in an honest debate and instead would rather present your OPINION as if it were fact. 

However, based on your own logic since your post is based on the LIE that are are wrong because one is then the rest of your posts are therefore suspect and all LIES. 

OH and if you could provide some proof that ALL of the nutjobs that attended tea party events were ALL plants then please provide it. 

If you continue to avoid that simple request then I will accept your avoidance as an admission that you don't have the proof.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is simple. When and if you're at a Tea Party protest, as I will be Thursday, if I notice someone spouting obviously inflammatory statements, I'll ask them to stop. If they don't, I'll kick their fuckin' ass. It's going to come to that anyway. The divide between ideologies in America is getting bigger by the day, as evidenced right here on this board. People are getting sick of all the talk. The time for violence is near.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so you will actually attack someone and deny them their right to freedom of speech??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, liberals acting as plants to try and discredit the tea party by deliberately lying and pretending to be racists, etc.
> 
> THAT'S NOT ATTACKING FREEDOM OF SPEECH?????
> 
> I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU HYPOCRITES BUT LIBERALS HAD A FIT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DID THIS!
> 
> Any of you genius old enough to remember the CIA etc infiltrating left wing groups to find out if they were up to criminal behavior (and a lot of time they were)
> 
> (See John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers discussing the plot to murder Senators that supported Vietnam).
> 
> Liberals had a FIT about that. But now it's OKAY???????????
> 
> ANY OF YOU MORONS REMEMBER NIXON? WATERGATE???????
> 
> Good Lord liberals are hypocrites.
Click to expand...


they are presenting an opinion that you disagree with and for that you ASSUME that they are a plant and attack them to shut them up. That is denying their right to freedom of speech. 

Oh and in case you didn't realize this there is a HUGE difference between the GOVERNMENT infultrating a group and an individual citizen or group of citizens talking about infultrating a group. However, thanks once again for exposing your own dishonesty and inability to engage in an honest debate as you try to change the subject.


----------



## amrchaos

How much does the Dems pay to have an operative infiltrate and dismantle the Tea Party?

I am willing to do it.  I need a decent paying job desperately!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Write to both the DNC and the RNC, and ask for a blogging job on sites like this one.  A relative of mine insists two of her friends wrote for _both _the parties in the 2008 election.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW do you require that same level of proof for claims made on your side of the political spectrum?? based on your own posts you don't even hold yourself to that standard so haw can anyone actually believe that you apply it to your own?
> 
> BTW where is the proof that all of these wackos at tea party rallies were actually lefties who infultrated tea parties and faked photos?
> 
> There was a similar thread the other day put up by samurai but that thread was abandoned after the spin fell flat.* Samurai tried to claim that a person, who held up a sign with a swastika on it as he was taking a photo of himself with malkin, was a plant and when asked for proof samurai was no where to be found. *
> 
> So where is the proof that all of the nutjobs at tea party rallies are plants??
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh BULL you did!
> 
> You showed a video that has the guy WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner, and you wouldn't even know he was there, except the camera man was give the heads up to film him.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...



WOW you make a lot of assumptions that you can't prove. It's especially odd since you attack liberals with your claim that they lack the ability to engage in honest debate and yet when put to the test and actually given the chance to engage in an honest debate you are the one that fails.

The person in question was on the stage and the sign was in view and NOT hidden, that is a fact. You can spin all you like however it won't change the facts but does make you look less than honest.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you know why those outlets are losing viewership while Fox News keeps increasing.
> 
> People are smart enough to know when they are being lied to.
> 
> At least some people. Those that aren't voted for Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo.......Teabagging Toothpick........try again. It's been proven REPEATEDLY that FAUX Noise has manipulated their newscasts and told outright bullshit.
> 
> One of which was Billo the Clown saying that nobody on his network has ever stated that the healthcare bill would put people in jail who didn't have insurance.
> 
> It doesn't by the way, but MANY (Beck, Billo the Forgetful, Hannity......) did say just that thing.
> 
> With that as a track record, why do you believe them? What's the matter, you don't have 2 synapses to rub together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Yeah Yeah, keep on ranting, but the ratings don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> And when you have any evidence for that rant, let me know.
Click to expand...


What do ratings have to do with the honesty of the network??? 

Just beause a large portion of wackjob conservative/republican hypocrites tune into them for their entertainment "news" from their commentator, non-reporter talking heads and assume that everything said is honest and not the least bit a flip flop from previous positions presented by that same network does NOT make them honest. 

You choose to believe them because they tell you what you want to hear that not not prove they are honest. Go back and compare their "reporting" under W and the things that they said in defense of a president to their "reporting" now and the things they say in an attempt to tear down a president. 

If you were HONEST then you would admit to the disparity and call foxnews dishonest. However, my guess is that you don't have the integrity.


----------



## drsmith1072

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those photos were proven to be fake and yet here we are addressing a multitude of straw men across PAGES of posts.  Address the damn point, those photos mean nothing.  Some may yet be real and yet still mean NOTHING.  There are just as many outrageous pics from the bush years from rallies and protests on the left.  There will always be a few here and there.  The VAST majority of the tea parties do not advocate such extremes.  I continually hear bashing from the left about the tea parties without ANY point made to the core beliefs of the movement.  That is partisan hackery at its finest.  IF you disagree with what the tea party represents then address that and quit the whining about false accusations and presumptions.  The left looks idiodic when they use these tactics and it is only giving those in the right more steam.
> 
> Another thing - CaliGirl has been mostly respectful in this post and has been attacked without reason.  The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.  Please try and look deep inside to find your humanity and use a modicum of intelligence to DEBATE instead of attack.  If the right is as dumb as you say it is it would be easy.  It seems to me that there are valid points you cannot refute and slamming others id the only way to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice................a big dumb Republican defending the GOP Whore.
> 
> What?  Are you and her planning on a little cyber action later?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
Click to expand...


Funny thing is that you attack others and then when they respond in kind you try to call them out saying that they are proving your point when that is NOT the case. 

If you attack others don't try to play the victim when they give back what you gave.


----------



## Patriot214

The attempt by the left to infiltrate the Tea Party movement is classic.  If they cannot beat what is spoken to be true, they simply attack it.


----------



## drsmith1072

The T said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just proves the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and it shows how liberals lack class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lack more than class.
Click to expand...


This is the funny part that exposes the hypocrisy of the right. they all agree with a post that attacks another poster becuase he disagrees with them and calls out posters for posting personal attacks



> The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.



and then in response to that post that they all agreed with and thanked they all begin attacking the other poster personally. LOL 

Thanks for the laugh and thanks for the blatant hypocrisy. LOL


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Patriot214 said:


> The attempt by the left to infiltrate the Tea Party movement is classic.  If they cannot beat what is spoken to be true, they simply attack it.



I think it's hilarious.


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly shows how dishonest and unethical liberals.
> 
> Here we have some of the most left posters here, this douchebag and the Sewer Worker Winger, who claim to be republicans, but have taken the most hard line left positions.
> 
> I have a question for my fellow righties.
> 
> Have you ever seen this douche bag or sewer worker winger take a republican position on this forum ever?
Click to expand...


I feel the same about all of you dishonest and unethical republicans who claim to be independents. LOL 

Oh and thanks again for engaging in and increasing the personal attacks and showing that you, according to FA_Q2, are a moron.


----------



## ABikerSailor

drsmith1072 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right and it shows how liberals lack class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lack more than class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the funny part that exposes the hypocrisy of the right. they all agree with a post that attacks another poster becuase he disagrees with them and calls out posters for posting personal attacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The posters here are looking more and more like morons as the personal attacks increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then in response to that post that they all agreed with and thanked they all begin attacking the other poster personally. LOL
> 
> Thanks for the laugh and thanks for the blatant hypocrisy. LOL
Click to expand...


Glad I could help.

If I was currently in a war zone, the people around me would call me a shit magnet, because I seem to attract shallow, stupid people to reply to my posts.


----------



## amrchaos

JakeStarkey said:


> Write to both the DNC and the RNC, and ask for a blogging job on sites like this one.  A relative of mine insists two of her friends wrote for _both _the parties in the 2008 election.



I do not have to send samples or anything.  Because the only thing I can pull out for the Dems is criticism of the Tea Party.  But I got a lot of Obama Criticisms, I think that will help me with the Republicans.


----------



## CMike

teapartysamurai said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly shows how dishonest and unethical liberals.
> 
> Here we have some of the most left posters here, this douchebag and the Sewer Worker Winger, who claim to be republicans, but have taken the most hard line left positions.
> 
> I have a question for my fellow righties.
> 
> Have you ever seen this douche bag or sewer worker winger take a republican position on this forum ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike he isn't even worth our time.
> 
> I'm sorry myself I even spoke to him.  Don't let him drag us down with his bad behavior and vile language.
> 
> I think we all should put him on ignore.   He's proved to be not worth our time.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Why should we lower himself to his level.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Dr Grump said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I remind you Nixon/Ford/Dole/McCain Rockefeller Republicans that you all had the same attitude toward Ronald Reagan in 1976.
> 
> Guess who got the last laugh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raygun got the last laugh, because I distinctly remember him being laughed at by most outside the US because he came across as a buffoon. It's funny how time 'rehabilitates' him as the saviour of the GoP and people get all melancholic about him. When I heard that doctors believe that last couple of years of office might have been affected by Alzheimer's, I for one, wasn't sitting there going "Oh,my God! Really!". In fact it put me at ease. It was good to think that some of his actions were not that of a rational person....
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, he came across as a buffoon.  Riiiiiiiiiight!

That's why he ended the cold war without a single shot, because he came across as a buffoon.

I think we see the buffoon.


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh BULL you did!
> 
> You showed a video that has the guy WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner, and you wouldn't even know he was there, except the camera man was give the heads up to film him.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by WAAAAAAAAAAAY over in the corner you mean right on stage with the speakers where you couldn't miss him and with the sign in plain sight, then you would be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He's way over in the corner.* The only reason the camera man knew he was there is he is helping him in this scheme.
> 
> Give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Malkin is over in the same "corner" one person away from him. Which means when she finished her speech at the dais and walked to her place almost next to him, she walked DIRECTLY towards him with him holding the sign in plain sight, putting the lie to her denial and making a toady of you.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Yeah keep lying.  What you show is a picture of Malkin where he is holding that sign DELIBERATELY away from her so she can't see it.

Liberals couldn't be honest if they tried.


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party. *If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.*
> 
> Discredited, fail!
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.
> 
> Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.
> 
> N-Word Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo  taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston
> 
> Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.
Click to expand...

 
BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos.  When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.

*I call BS!
*
*
*


----------



## tigerbob

teapartysamurai said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I remind you Nixon/Ford/Dole/McCain Rockefeller Republicans that you all had the same attitude toward Ronald Reagan in 1976.
> 
> Guess who got the last laugh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raygun got the last laugh, because I distinctly remember him being laughed at by most outside the US because he came across as a buffoon. It's funny how time 'rehabilitates' him as the saviour of the GoP and people get all melancholic about him. When I heard that doctors believe that last couple of years of office might have been affected by Alzheimer's, I for one, wasn't sitting there going "Oh,my God! Really!". In fact it put me at ease. It was good to think that some of his actions were not that of a rational person....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he came across as a buffoon.  Riiiiiiiiiight!
> 
> That's why he ended the cold war without a single shot, because he came across as a buffoon.
> 
> I think we see the buffoon.
Click to expand...


Nah, there were perceptions of Reagan being a buffoon outside the US.  But I do find it interesting the way the opinions of "some people" become the opinions of "most people".  How appropriate for a tea party thread.

Reagan, by his own admission, was not the sharpest knife in the block which is why he always said he surrounded himself with smart people.  

In the US, whether you believe his advisers were smart probably depends largely on your political affiliation.

Outside the US, opinion of his legacy is largely positive.  This is possibly due to the fact that it is, naturally, most heavily shaped by views of how he performed on the international stage, and less by domestic issues.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proves my point about how stupid **** Mike is.
> 
> I've voted for Bush Sr., I'd voted for Bush Jr. the FIRST time and against him the second time.
> 
> Yeah......tell me again how much of a liberal I am.........I'm an independent, it's non observant morons such as yourself that view anything that doesn't line up exactly with their narrow view as "liberal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah. I wish I had that old Rush Limbaugh parody to post:
> 
> "Repeat after me: 'I love your show, and I always agree you, and I voted for Bush.'"
> 
> If I had a DIME for every liberal who told me that load of bull.
> 
> Your actions in attacking everyone around here with your vile language and your vile behavior, puts the lie to your claims without me having to say a word.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I believe in big government? No. People need to take as much responsibility for themselves as possible.
> 
> Do I believe in more taxes? No. People (and this includes the rich ass CEO's and Wall St. types) should pay 5 percent of what they make. Corporations included, because Exxon made a shitpot of money and paid zero cents to America.
> 
> Do I believe that cannabis should be legal? Yes. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed? Yes. I served in the military for 20 years and I think it's a stupid rule. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe gays should be allowed to marry? Yes. Yeshua said "love God above all else, and love one another as you love God". Gender was NOT specified. I guess that makes me a liberal as well.
> 
> I served 20 years in 4 war zones in the defense of this country. What have YOU done for America Teabagger Shoo Fly?
Click to expand...

 

Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.

I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked! Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe. 

As for your nonsense about what Jesus said: NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME. You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.

Jesus also said this:



> Matthew 5:18 (King James Version)
> 
> *18*For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


 
Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality???????? 

That's the law Jesus is talking about.

But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:



> Romans 1:22-27 (King James Version)
> 
> *22*Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> *23*And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> *24*Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> *25*Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> *27*And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


 
Now, those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."

Well there's a simple reason for that. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. He was preaching to JEWS. Jews who knew this:



> Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
> 
> *22*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


 
There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination. Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them. No debate on the subject was needed.

But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common. The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.

Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.

But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.


----------



## teapartysamurai

tigerbob said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raygun got the last laugh, because I distinctly remember him being laughed at by most outside the US because he came across as a buffoon. It's funny how time 'rehabilitates' him as the saviour of the GoP and people get all melancholic about him. When I heard that doctors believe that last couple of years of office might have been affected by Alzheimer's, I for one, wasn't sitting there going "Oh,my God! Really!". In fact it put me at ease. It was good to think that some of his actions were not that of a rational person....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he came across as a buffoon. Riiiiiiiiiight!
> 
> That's why he ended the cold war without a single shot, because he came across as a buffoon.
> 
> I think we see the buffoon.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, there were perceptions of Reagan being a buffoon outside the US. But I do find it interesting the way the opinions of "some people" become the opinions of "most people". How appropriate for a tea party thread.
> 
> Reagan, by his own admission, was not the sharpest knife in the block which is why he always said he surrounded himself with smart people.
> 
> In the US, whether you believe his advisers were smart probably depends largely on your political affiliation.
> 
> Outside the US, opinion of his legacy is largely positive. This is possibly due to the fact that it is, naturally, most heavily shaped by views of how he performed on the international stage, and less by domestic issues.
Click to expand...

 
When you have that quote let me know.

However, those who are smart enough to have good people around them, show their own smarts.

For example look who Obama surrounds himself with.  Tax cheats and thugs.


----------



## tigerbob

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah. I wish I had that old Rush Limbaugh parody to post:
> 
> "Repeat after me: 'I love your show, and I always agree you, and I voted for Bush.'"
> 
> If I had a DIME for every liberal who told me that load of bull.
> 
> Your actions in attacking everyone around here with your vile language and your vile behavior, puts the lie to your claims without me having to say a word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe in big government? No. People need to take as much responsibility for themselves as possible.
> 
> Do I believe in more taxes? No. People (and this includes the rich ass CEO's and Wall St. types) should pay 5 percent of what they make. Corporations included, because Exxon made a shitpot of money and paid zero cents to America.
> 
> Do I believe that cannabis should be legal? Yes. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed? Yes. I served in the military for 20 years and I think it's a stupid rule. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe gays should be allowed to marry? Yes. Yeshua said "love God above all else, and love one another as you love God". Gender was NOT specified. I guess that makes me a liberal as well.
> 
> I served 20 years in 4 war zones in the defense of this country. What have YOU done for America Teabagger Shoo Fly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.
> 
> I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked!  Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe.
> 
> As for your nonsense about what Jesus said:  NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME.  You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.
> 
> Jesus also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality????????
> 
> That's the law Jesus is talking about.
> 
> But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1:22-27 (King James Version)
> 
> 
> 
> *22*Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> *23*And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> *24*Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> *25*Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> *27*And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, *those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say* "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."
> 
> *Well there's a simple reason for that.  HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. * He was preaching to JEWS.  Jews who knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
> 
> *22*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination.  Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them.  No debate on the subject was needed.
> 
> But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common.  The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.
> 
> But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.
Click to expand...


Thank God there are theologians around to tell us what Jesus really meant.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> Thus says the snarky GOP whore.


 
I think we see who the whore is, and who just has thing for California Girl.

What's a matta?  Ism all upset because she's unatainable?  

Poor Poor baby.


----------



## teapartysamurai

California Girl said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is another California Girl on these boards, you're full of shit, because that GOP whore doesn't have ANYTHING nice to say to anyone that doesn't post Republican rhetoric.
> 
> Try again assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "_I'm gunning for YOU California Girl, and I can't think of anything else to say but to further illustrate the points of others in my loser rhetoric..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGaySailor has 'issues' with me. His obsession is noted, and for the most part, ignored. Little people are not worthy adversaries. They're too easy to make look foolish.
Click to expand...

 
I think it's an attraction thing.  He knows your unatainable, so he let's his frustration with that be known by his tirades.

Wouldn't be the first time a guy did that to me.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a video of the event that exposed Malkin's denial as a lie and still the CON$ defended her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.
> 
> Rich.
Click to expand...

 
As opposed to YOU never posting ANY facts, just ranting?


----------



## teapartysamurai

tigerbob said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe in big government? No. People need to take as much responsibility for themselves as possible.
> 
> Do I believe in more taxes? No. People (and this includes the rich ass CEO's and Wall St. types) should pay 5 percent of what they make. Corporations included, because Exxon made a shitpot of money and paid zero cents to America.
> 
> Do I believe that cannabis should be legal? Yes. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed? Yes. I served in the military for 20 years and I think it's a stupid rule. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe gays should be allowed to marry? Yes. Yeshua said "love God above all else, and love one another as you love God". Gender was NOT specified. I guess that makes me a liberal as well.
> 
> I served 20 years in 4 war zones in the defense of this country. What have YOU done for America Teabagger Shoo Fly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.
> 
> I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked! Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe.
> 
> As for your nonsense about what Jesus said: NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME. You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.
> 
> Jesus also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality????????
> 
> That's the law Jesus is talking about.
> 
> But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say* "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."
> 
> *Well there's a simple reason for that. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. *He was preaching to JEWS. Jews who knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
> 
> *22*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination. Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them. No debate on the subject was needed.
> 
> But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common. The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.
> 
> But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God there are theologians around to tell us what Jesus really meant.
Click to expand...

 
Excuse me, but I'm not the one that came into this thread pontificating on what Jesus meant, that was the nobrainer Biker.

I was simply correcting him on that, since his declaration of what Jesus meant was factually and historically wrong.

If you try to make an argument by the scriptures (which he did) and you aren't factual on it, you die by the scripture.

If people aren't going to bring up the Bible, and they obviously DON'T KNOW what they are talking about, I'm going to set them straight when I can. NO APOLOGIES WHATSOEVER IN THAT REGARD.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TeaPartySamurai clearly does not understand what the Lord taught in word and spirit.

I will leave it at the for you, fellow.  Go to.

If there was ever a reason to question your sanity and ability, you gave it full credence.  You are a loon.


----------



## Immanuel

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those jerk offs couldn't peacefully and/or respectfully protest if their lives depended on it.  Their racism and bigotry get in the way too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, we need to spit at Military people and burn some flags to be taken seriously as protesters, right? Fucking moron.
> 
> The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left, they aren't smart enough  to keep it off public forums. Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it.
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact that the Tea Baggers are too stupid to stop the infiltration even when these "sneak" attacks are telegraphed, speaks volumes about the intellect of you and the rest of you "patriots".
Click to expand...


How on God's green earth do you propose to stop the infiltrators?

The only possible thing that "Tea Partiers" could do is when they see it in their midst is point out the people who are perpetrating these "affronts" to the authorities and let the authorities deal with them.

It hasn't happened and until it does those who attend Tea Parties are going to have to live with the reputation of being racist bigots.  

Right now there is neither proof that any one yelling the N-Word or spitting is either a right winger or a left wing infiltrator.  Until people who attend the tea parties start weeding out the trash, they will be viewed as bigots.

However, back to my question, besides weeding them out by turning them over to the authorities, how would you propose they stop infiltrators.  This is a free country for now and everyone has the right to attend those demonstrations.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Xenophon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> The really funny thing is, arianna huffington was a conservative until she figured out you could make real money off the drooling barry worship crowd.
Click to expand...


And when things change, she'll be conservative again.  She wasn't worth listening to as a conservative and she is not worth listening to now.

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

tigerbob said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe in big government? No. People need to take as much responsibility for themselves as possible.
> 
> Do I believe in more taxes? No. People (and this includes the rich ass CEO's and Wall St. types) should pay 5 percent of what they make. Corporations included, because Exxon made a shitpot of money and paid zero cents to America.
> 
> Do I believe that cannabis should be legal? Yes. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be repealed? Yes. I served in the military for 20 years and I think it's a stupid rule. I guess that makes me a liberal.
> 
> Do I believe gays should be allowed to marry? Yes. Yeshua said "love God above all else, and love one another as you love God". Gender was NOT specified. I guess that makes me a liberal as well.
> 
> I served 20 years in 4 war zones in the defense of this country. What have YOU done for America Teabagger Shoo Fly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.
> 
> I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked!  Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe.
> 
> As for your nonsense about what Jesus said:  NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME.  You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.
> 
> Jesus also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality????????
> 
> That's the law Jesus is talking about.
> 
> But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say* "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."
> 
> *Well there's a simple reason for that.  HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. * He was preaching to JEWS.  Jews who knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
> 
> *22*Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination.  Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them.  No debate on the subject was needed.
> 
> But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common.  The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.
> 
> But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God there are theologians around to tell us what Jesus really meant.
Click to expand...


Hey, Tea Party Suckwad, do you understand what was meant by not one jot or tittle of the Law?  The Law is a reference to the Torah, and a jot or a tittle is the punctuation and vowel marks around the letter.  Remember you sucking moron, Yeshua is Jewish.

By the way, as far as Leviticus is concerned, a quick question............

Are you a Jewish Priest?  If not, then why are you using a book for Jewish Priest?



> Leviticus (Greek: &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites") or Vayikra (Hebrew: &#1493;&#1497;&#1511;&#1512;&#1488;&#8206;, literally "and He called") is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah/Pentateuch.
> 
> Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exoduswhat is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, with rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 1726 contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with "abominations", largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions which are applied equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."
> 
> According to Jewish tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses, letter by letter, as He did the other books of the Bible.[1]



Book of Leviticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as Yeshua not saying anything about homosexuality?  Try this on for size.....



> Did you know?
> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> * The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
> * The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
> * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> * 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
> * No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
> * Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
> * Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
> * Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.



LGBT Texts

Fundamentalist assholes like you are easy to figure out.


----------



## tigerbob

ABikerSailor said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.
> 
> I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked!  Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe.
> 
> As for your nonsense about what Jesus said:  NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME.  You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.
> 
> Jesus also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality????????
> 
> That's the law Jesus is talking about.
> 
> But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say* "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."
> 
> *Well there's a simple reason for that.  HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. * He was preaching to JEWS.  Jews who knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination.  Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them.  No debate on the subject was needed.
> 
> But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common.  The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.
> 
> But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God there are theologians around to tell us what Jesus really meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Tea Party Suckwad, do you understand what was meant by not one jot or tittle of the Law?  The Law is a reference to the Torah, and a jot or a tittle is the punctuation and vowel marks around the letter.  Remember you sucking moron, Yeshua is Jewish.
> 
> By the way, as far as Leviticus is concerned, a quick question............
> 
> Are you a Jewish Priest?  If not, then why are you using a book for Jewish Priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus (Greek: &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites") or Vayikra (Hebrew: &#1493;&#1497;&#1511;&#1512;&#1488;&#8206;, literally "and He called") is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah/Pentateuch.
> 
> Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exoduswhat is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, with rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 1726 contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with "abominations", largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions which are applied equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."
> 
> According to Jewish tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses, letter by letter, as He did the other books of the Bible.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Book of Leviticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As far as Yeshua not saying anything about homosexuality?  Try this on for size.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know?
> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> * The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
> * The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
> * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> * 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
> * No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
> * Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
> * Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
> * Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> Fundamentalist assholes like you are easy to figure out.
Click to expand...


Suck my dick.


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> AmwayMike
> 
> What does that have to do with being a Republican?
> 
> The Republican party exists at all levels of Government. Not all are tied to the radical right-wing imitation that now claims to be the national GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!  There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
Click to expand...


Best candidate?  In who's opinion?

I for one would have voted for Obama over McCain if I had no other choices.  I have disliked him since... hell, I can't remember ever having liked him.  I respect the fact that he served his country, but I would never vote for him.  Not in a million years.

Immie


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> TeaPartySamurai clearly does not understand what the Lord taught in word and spirit.
> 
> I will leave it at the for you, fellow. Go to.
> 
> If there was ever a reason to question your sanity and ability, you gave it full credence. You are a loon.


 
I don't understand this by QUOTING Christ's WORDS????????   

And why is it those who claim to understand Christ and yet wish to refute me, CANNOT DO THE SAME AND QUOTE HIS WORDS?

No, we are supposed to understand this, simply because you say so.

Do we not understand what the Lord taught in spirit, OR YOU?


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, we need to spit at Military people and burn some flags to be taken seriously as protesters, right? Fucking moron.
> 
> The left are organizing infiltration of the TEA Parties - trouble with the left, they aren't smart enough to keep it off public forums. Morons. So, the evidence is there to find for anyone who bothers to research it.
> 
> And you really have to love the HuffPo's call for 'citizen journalists' to join in. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic..... to deny it is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that the Tea Baggers are too stupid to stop the infiltration even when these "sneak" attacks are telegraphed, speaks volumes about the intellect of you and the rest of you "patriots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on God's green earth do you propose to stop the infiltrators?
> 
> The only possible thing that "Tea Partiers" could do is when they see it in their midst is point out the people who are perpetrating these "affronts" to the authorities and let the authorities deal with them.
> 
> It hasn't happened and until it does those who attend Tea Parties are going to have to live with the reputation of being racist bigots.
> 
> Right now there is neither proof that any one yelling the N-Word or spitting is either a right winger or a left wing infiltrator. Until people who attend the tea parties start weeding out the trash, they will be viewed as bigots.
> 
> However, back to my question, besides weeding them out by turning them over to the authorities, how would you propose they stop infiltrators. This is a free country for now and everyone has the right to attend those demonstrations.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
We have a right to challenge them, as well.

They think they can just walk all over us and smear us with any sneaky tacticd they wish.  

They think there is nothing we can do?

Wrong, we can ask those with racist banners to leave.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> TeaPartySamurai clearly does not understand what the Lord taught in word and spirit.
> 
> I will leave it at the for you, fellow. Go to.
> 
> If there was ever a reason to question your sanity and ability, you gave it full credence. You are a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this by QUOTING Christ's WORDS????????
> 
> And why is it those who claim to understand Christ and yet wish to refute me, CANNOT DO THE SAME AND QUOTE HIS WORDS?
> 
> No, we are supposed to understand this, simply because you say so.
> 
> Do we not understand what the Lord taught in spirit, OR YOU?
Click to expand...


I sincerely doubt the Christ is speaking through you or the Tea Party.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that the Tea Baggers are too stupid to stop the infiltration even when these "sneak" attacks are telegraphed, speaks volumes about the intellect of you and the rest of you "patriots".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on God's green earth do you propose to stop the infiltrators?
> 
> The only possible thing that "Tea Partiers" could do is when they see it in their midst is point out the people who are perpetrating these "affronts" to the authorities and let the authorities deal with them.
> 
> It hasn't happened and until it does those who attend Tea Parties are going to have to live with the reputation of being racist bigots.
> 
> Right now there is neither proof that any one yelling the N-Word or spitting is either a right winger or a left wing infiltrator. Until people who attend the tea parties start weeding out the trash, they will be viewed as bigots.
> 
> However, back to my question, besides weeding them out by turning them over to the authorities, how would you propose they stop infiltrators. This is a free country for now and everyone has the right to attend those demonstrations.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a right to challenge them, as well.
> 
> They think they can just walk all over us and smear us with any sneaky tacticd they wish.
> 
> They think there is nothing we can do?
> 
> Wrong, we can ask those with racist banners to leave.
Click to expand...


You can ask, but you have no right to make them leave and even if you do ask, if you don't take a public stand against them, then whatever they say and do before you do ask them to leave affects your movement.

Without taking a public stand against them, then and there, you are letting their actions speak for you.  To go along with that, as long as you let them get away with it, they will be known as part of your group.  If you don't call them out publicly then they will forever be known as part of you.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey

Which is exactly what you should have done from day one, TPS.  Good thinking, though.  Do it.  Clear out all racist banners.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you are for legalizing Marijuana.
> 
> I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooos shocked! Of all the crap you wrote, that's the one I believe.
> 
> As for your nonsense about what Jesus said: NEVER DEBATE THE BIBLE WITH ME. You will lose, LOSE BADLY, and be furious when you do.
> 
> Jesus also said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what the Mosiac law had to say about homosexuality????????
> 
> That's the law Jesus is talking about.
> 
> But asside from the OT Mosaic Law, there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *those who aren't that bright and don't know the Bible will always say* "But, but but, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in the Gospels."
> 
> *Well there's a simple reason for that. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. *He was preaching to JEWS. Jews who knew this:
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO QUESTION among the Jews that God said homosexuality was an abmination. Thus, it was never brought up by the Pharises, or by Jesus because this was a well established fact among them. No debate on the subject was needed.
> 
> But PAUL, who wrote Romans, was preaching to pagans, among whom homosexuality was common. The VERY CHAPTER OF HIS VERY EPISTLE. he makes it clear to those he is writing to that homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't rationalize your way around that.
> 
> But it never did stop those who find the Bible gets in the way of their good time and their good weed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God there are theologians around to tell us what Jesus really meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Tea Party Suckwad, do you understand what was meant by not one jot or tittle of the Law? The Law is a reference to the Torah, and a jot or a tittle is the punctuation and vowel marks around the letter. Remember you sucking moron, Yeshua is Jewish.
> 
> By the way, as far as Leviticus is concerned, a quick question............
> 
> Are you a Jewish Priest? If not, then why are you using a book for Jewish Priest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leviticus (Greek: &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites") or Vayikra (Hebrew: &#1493;&#1497;&#1511;&#1512;&#1488;&#8206;, literally "and He called") is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah/Pentateuch.
> 
> Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exodus&#8212;what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, with rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 17&#8211;26 contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with "abominations", largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions which are applied equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."
> 
> According to Jewish tradition, God dictated the Book of Leviticus to Moses, letter by letter, as He did the other books of the Bible.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Book of Leviticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As far as Yeshua not saying anything about homosexuality? Try this on for size.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know?
> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> * The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
> * The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
> * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> * 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
> * No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
> * Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
> * Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
> * Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> Fundamentalist assholes like you are easy to figure out.
Click to expand...

 
The 10 Commandments are only repeated twice in the OT but that doesn't mean they aren't to be obeyed.

Homosexuality only being mentioned so many times is a loophole to you or something? 

What does how many times they are mentioned have to do with HOW THEY ARE MENTIONED?

You want Jewish? Try this:



> Vayikra Chapter 18 22 (Tanakh)
> &#1493;&#1456;&#1488;&#1462;&#1514;-&#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1464;&#1512;--&#1500;&#1465;&#1488; &#1514;&#1460;&#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1499;&#1463;&#1468;&#1489;, &#1502;&#1460;&#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1499;&#1456;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497; &#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1464;&#1468;&#1473;&#1492;: &#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492;, &#1492;&#1460;&#1493;&#1488;
> 
> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.


 


> Vayikra Chapter 20 (Tanakh)
> 
> &#1488;&#1460;&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;, &#1488;&#1458;&#1513;&#1462;&#1473;&#1512; &#1497;&#1460;&#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1499;&#1463;&#1468;&#1489; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514;-&#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1464;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1499;&#1456;&#1468;&#1489;&#1461;&#1497; &#1488;&#1460;&#1513;&#1464;&#1468;&#1473;&#1492;--&#1514;&#1468;&#1493;&#1465;&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492; &#1506;&#1464;&#1513;&#1474;&#1493;&#1468;, &#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501;; &#1502;&#1493;&#1465;&#1514; &#1497;&#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1464;&#1514;&#1493;&#1468;, &#1491;&#1456;&#1468;&#1502;&#1461;&#1497;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1489;&#1464;&#1468;&#1501;
> 
> 13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


 
Vayikra - Leviticus Table of Contents

Now that is about as Jewish as you can get.

Like I said. The reason Jesus NEVER mentioned homosexuality in all his debates with the Pharises and teaching the Jewish people is, HE DIND'T HAVE TO. 

There was NO question in the Jewish Law that homosexuality was an abomination.

Paul, however, who taught Pagans, right from the get go teaches pagans that homosexuality is a no no in Christianity, because, he did need to. Homosexuality was rampant in pagan culture. 



> Romans 1:22-32 (King James Version)
> 
> 
> 
> *22*Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> *23*And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> *24*Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> *25*Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> *26*For this cause God gave them up unto *vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature*:
> 
> *27*And likewise also the *men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. *
> 
> *28*And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> *29*Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> *30*Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> *31*Without understanding, covenantbreakers, *without natural affection*, implacable, unmerciful:
> *32*Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


 
Now, I don't care how many PC Bible "experts" you bring up, (and Wikipedia is a joke) you aren't going to get arounds those scriptures, and calling me a "fundamentalist" won't help you either.

All fundamentalist really means in liberal speak is "you follow the Bible, and not me. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!" 


So, that's fine if you don't want to follow the Bible. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending you do. Thus showing what a fraud that is, by having a melt down tantrum the minute that lie was challenged.

That's the problem with weed smokers. They are not rational. They are always over emotional, and they always go into a profanity laced tiradeS the minute you challenge their fantasies.

Why didn't I ever start smoking marijuana? 

Because thank God my Mamma read me the Bible every day and gave me a strong upbringing in right and wrong.

And I saw the results of too many people that did. I never wanted that to be me, and so far, Thank God, it hasn't.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> TeaPartySamurai clearly does not understand what the Lord taught in word and spirit.
> 
> I will leave it at the for you, fellow. Go to.
> 
> If there was ever a reason to question your sanity and ability, you gave it full credence. You are a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this by QUOTING Christ's WORDS????????
> 
> And why is it those who claim to understand Christ and yet wish to refute me, CANNOT DO THE SAME AND QUOTE HIS WORDS?
> 
> No, we are supposed to understand this, simply because you say so.
> 
> Do we not understand what the Lord taught in spirit, OR YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sincerely doubt the Christ is speaking through you or the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

 
Which says far more about you than me or the Tea Party.

Apparently God speaks through YOU, thus you are an expert on whom God speaks through.

(Liberals, no matter how humble they pretend to be their arrgance comes through.)


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on God's green earth do you propose to stop the infiltrators?
> 
> The only possible thing that "Tea Partiers" could do is when they see it in their midst is point out the people who are perpetrating these "affronts" to the authorities and let the authorities deal with them.
> 
> It hasn't happened and until it does those who attend Tea Parties are going to have to live with the reputation of being racist bigots.
> 
> Right now there is neither proof that any one yelling the N-Word or spitting is either a right winger or a left wing infiltrator. Until people who attend the tea parties start weeding out the trash, they will be viewed as bigots.
> 
> However, back to my question, besides weeding them out by turning them over to the authorities, how would you propose they stop infiltrators. This is a free country for now and everyone has the right to attend those demonstrations.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a right to challenge them, as well.
> 
> They think they can just walk all over us and smear us with any sneaky tacticd they wish.
> 
> They think there is nothing we can do?
> 
> Wrong, we can ask those with racist banners to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can ask, but you have no right to make them leave and even if you do ask, if you don't take a public stand against them, then whatever they say and do before you do ask them to leave affects your movement.
> 
> Without taking a public stand against them, then and there, you are letting their actions speak for you. To go along with that, as long as you let them get away with it, they will be known as part of your group. If you don't call them out publicly then they will forever be known as part of you.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
And asking them to leave is NOT taking a public stand?????

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a right to challenge them, as well.
> 
> They think they can just walk all over us and smear us with any sneaky tacticd they wish.
> 
> They think there is nothing we can do?
> 
> Wrong, we can ask those with racist banners to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask, but you have no right to make them leave and even if you do ask, if you don't take a public stand against them, then whatever they say and do before you do ask them to leave affects your movement.
> 
> Without taking a public stand against them, then and there, you are letting their actions speak for you. To go along with that, as long as you let them get away with it, they will be known as part of your group. If you don't call them out publicly then they will forever be known as part of you.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And asking them to leave is NOT taking a public stand?????
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
Click to expand...


You ask them to leave.  Who knows about it but you and the creep with the racist sign?  No one.

You (the leaders of the movement) get up on stage and make a public announcement that they are not welcomed at the event gets public notice.

The leaders of the movement go on nationwide tv and publicly state that those people in no way represent the views of the movement.  That gets public notice.  

Casually asking them to leave does nothing for your cause nor does beating the shit out of them as Pale Rider indicated would be his solution.  

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said Tea Party Suckwad, why are YOU as a Christian, referring to a rulebook for Jewish priests?

Or to put it another way..........would you follow a High Catholic Mass in your church just for kicks?  No?  

Then why the fuck are you trying to use a book you have no business using?

And........for the record..........paganism is in the Catholic religion.

Cherry picking assholes like you is the reason current Christianity is so screwed up.  And no.......I'm a Taoist.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best candidate? In who's opinion?
> 
> I for one would have voted for Obama over McCain if I had no other choices. I have disliked him since... hell, I can't remember ever having liked him. I respect the fact that he served his country, but I would never vote for him. Not in a million years.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
I voted for McCain mainly because I didn't have a choice.  By the time my state had it's primary all the other candidates had dropped out except Huckabee, and Huckabee is a global warming joke too.

But having lived long enough to see the damage a bad Democrat can do like Jimmy Carter (and we are still living with the damage) I did not want to vote for Obama.

As for who will run in 2012.  Time will tell.

I'm not crazy about Romney either.  I don't think he's conservative and his record in Taxachusetts backs that up.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best candidate? In who's opinion?
> 
> I for one would have voted for Obama over McCain if I had no other choices. I have disliked him since... hell, I can't remember ever having liked him. I respect the fact that he served his country, but I would never vote for him. Not in a million years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted for McCain mainly because I didn't have a choice.  By the time my state had it's primary all the other candidates had dropped out except Huckabee, and Huckabee is a global warming joke too.
> 
> But having lived long enough to see the damage a bad Democrat can do like Jimmy Carter (and we are still living with the damage) I did not want to vote for Obama.
> 
> As for who will run in 2012.  Time will tell.
> 
> I'm not crazy about Romney either.  I don't think he's conservative and his record in Taxachusetts backs that up.
Click to expand...


My feeling is "you've seen one politician; you've seen them all".

I didn't vote for either McCain or Obama as I knew one of them was going to win and neither one of them were worth a wooden nickel.  I voted for Barr.  Not because I expected him to be any different, but because I wanted to cast a vote and I wanted it to be seen as a vote against the two parties in charge.

I'm sure it didn't even get noticed, but maybe if enough of us started telling both parties to get screwed one or both would change.  

I know, I know that is wishful thinking, but hey, that is how I feel.

Immie


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said Tea Party Suckwad, why are YOU as a Christian, referring to a rulebook for Jewish priests?
> 
> Or to put it another way..........would you follow a High Catholic Mass in your church just for kicks? No?
> 
> Then why the fuck are you trying to use a book you have no business using?
> 
> And........for the record..........paganism is in the Catholic religion.
> 
> Cherry picking assholes like you is the reason current Christianity is so screwed up. And no.......I'm a Taoist.


 
Pssssst! 

I hate to break it to you . . . . Don't let this get around. The shock might be too much for some people, but . . . . .*JESUS WAS JEWISH!* 

And Paul wrote in the NEW TESTAMENT that homosexuality was an abomination. I posted it for you twice. ROMANS I. That's a Christian text.

Albiet, one could say it's a Jewish text (despite it being written in Greek) because it was written by a Jew, that being Paul of Tarsus.

BUT, I know you are losing, because you have ceased to even TRY to discuss the issue and have fallen back to the 20 questions tactic.

When you are losing start attacking the person who is winning by "interrogating" them with question, in a deperate attempt to put them on the defensive.

It won't work. You have conceded you can't get around the texts I quoted by abandoning even trying to challenge them.

Thus, you are WRONG about Jesus approving of gay marriage.

I agree, that you lost that one. As for your ranting about Cherry picking in Christianity. I know what that means. You resent there are more intelligent people than you. 

That's why you rant about California Girl. An intelligent person wouldn't call names, they would seek to debate that person and defeat them in the arena of ideas, like I am defeating YOU. But you aren't intelligent, so you rant, call names, and display why you hate people, but it still boils down to the same thing. You resent people with more smarts than you, which means you must be angry at a lot of people.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best candidate? In who's opinion?
> 
> I for one would have voted for Obama over McCain if I had no other choices. I have disliked him since... hell, I can't remember ever having liked him. I respect the fact that he served his country, but I would never vote for him. Not in a million years.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I voted for McCain mainly because I didn't have a choice. By the time my state had it's primary all the other candidates had dropped out except Huckabee, and Huckabee is a global warming joke too.
> 
> But having lived long enough to see the damage a bad Democrat can do like Jimmy Carter (and we are still living with the damage) I did not want to vote for Obama.
> 
> As for who will run in 2012. Time will tell.
> 
> I'm not crazy about Romney either. I don't think he's conservative and his record in Taxachusetts backs that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My feeling is "you've seen one politician; you've seen them all".
> 
> I didn't vote for either McCain or Obama as I knew one of them was going to win and neither one of them were worth a wooden nickel. I voted for Barr. Not because I expected him to be any different, but because I wanted to cast a vote and I wanted it to be seen as a vote against the two parties in charge.
> 
> I'm sure it didn't even get noticed, but maybe if enough of us started telling both parties to get screwed one or both would change.
> 
> I know, I know that is wishful thinking, but hey, that is how I feel.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY.

It never works.  Every time people have done this, they only elect the person, they least want.

This has been true since Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.

Any time you vote third party you simply split the vote and the other side wins.

John Anderson proved this.  Ross Perot proves this.  Ralph Nader proved this.

I could go on and on.  It never works in the presidential election.  It just gets the other guy elected.

I know those doing so think they are making a stand but in that they are sadly deluded.  History does not lie and the history of the third party vote in presidential elections is only failure.

If that "stand" made any real difference we would have a viable third party by now.  We don't, because it dosn't work.

Now, I expect you to get mad at me and rant about the Democrats and Republicans, but that isn't the point.  It doesn't matter how much they suck, that doesn't change the history.

The only way that works is for one of the main parties to fall, and the last time that happened, the Whiggs fell, leading to the rise of the Republican party.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted for McCain mainly because I didn't have a choice. By the time my state had it's primary all the other candidates had dropped out except Huckabee, and Huckabee is a global warming joke too.
> 
> But having lived long enough to see the damage a bad Democrat can do like Jimmy Carter (and we are still living with the damage) I did not want to vote for Obama.
> 
> As for who will run in 2012. Time will tell.
> 
> I'm not crazy about Romney either. I don't think he's conservative and his record in Taxachusetts backs that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My feeling is "you've seen one politician; you've seen them all".
> 
> I didn't vote for either McCain or Obama as I knew one of them was going to win and neither one of them were worth a wooden nickel. I voted for Barr. Not because I expected him to be any different, but because I wanted to cast a vote and I wanted it to be seen as a vote against the two parties in charge.
> 
> I'm sure it didn't even get noticed, but maybe if enough of us started telling both parties to get screwed one or both would change.
> 
> I know, I know that is wishful thinking, but hey, that is how I feel.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY.
> 
> It never works.  Every time people have done this, they only elect the person, they least want.
> 
> This has been true since Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.
> 
> Any time you vote third party you simply split the vote and the other side wins.
> 
> John Anderson proved this.  Ross Perot proves this.  Ralph Nader proved this.
> 
> I could go on and on.  It never works in the presidential election.  It just gets the other guy elected.
> 
> I know those doing so think they are making a stand but in that they are sadly deluded.  History does not lie and the history of the third party vote in presidential elections is only failure.
> 
> If that "stand" made any real difference we would have a viable third party by now.  We don't, because it dosn't work.
> 
> Now, I expect you to get mad at me and rant about the Democrats and Republicans, but that isn't the point.  It doesn't matter how much they suck, that doesn't change the history.
> 
> The only way that works is for one of the main parties to fall, and the last time that happened, the Whiggs fell, leading to the rise of the Republican party.
Click to expand...


Not true.

As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me.  It mattered not which one won.  One was going to win.

In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for.  Both parties have lost my support.  I really don't care which one wins any more.

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said Tea Party Suckwad, why are YOU as a Christian, referring to a rulebook for Jewish priests?
> 
> Or to put it another way..........would you follow a High Catholic Mass in your church just for kicks? No?
> 
> Then why the fuck are you trying to use a book you have no business using?
> 
> And........for the record..........paganism is in the Catholic religion.
> 
> Cherry picking assholes like you is the reason current Christianity is so screwed up. And no.......I'm a Taoist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssssst!
> 
> I hate to break it to you . . . .  Don't let this get around.  The shock might be too much for some people, but . . . . .*JESUS WAS JEWISH!*
> 
> And Paul wrote in the NEW TESTAMENT that homosexuality was an abomination.  I posted it for you twice.  ROMANS I.  That's a  Christian text.
> 
> Albiet, one could say it's a Jewish text (despite it being written in Greek) because it was written by a Jew, that being Paul of Tarsus.
> 
> BUT, I know you are losing, because you have ceased to even TRY to discuss the issue and have fallen back to the 20 questions tactic.
> 
> When you are losing start attacking the person who is winning by "interrogating" them with question, in a deperate attempt to put them on the defensive.
> 
> It won't work.  You have conceded you can't get around the texts I quoted by abandoning even trying to challenge them.
> 
> Thus, you are WRONG about Jesus approving of gay marriage.
> 
> I agree, that you lost that one.
Click to expand...


Of course Yeshua was Jewish.  He was in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, and He was crucified and rose again, which is the Easter celebration.

However...........a year or two back, Christians were celebrating Easter a full week BEFORE Passover.

Oh yeah brainiac, the ENTIRE OT is Jewish.  Basically, the first 5 books are the Torah, and the rest is pretty much a history of the Jewish people.

No........it was never originally written in Greek.

Try again Teabagger 'Tard.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said Tea Party Suckwad, why are YOU as a Christian, referring to a rulebook for Jewish priests?
> 
> Or to put it another way..........would you follow a High Catholic Mass in your church just for kicks? No?
> 
> Then why the fuck are you trying to use a book you have no business using?
> 
> And........for the record..........paganism is in the Catholic religion.
> 
> Cherry picking assholes like you is the reason current Christianity is so screwed up. And no.......I'm a Taoist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssssst!
> 
> I hate to break it to you . . . . Don't let this get around. The shock might be too much for some people, but . . . . .*JESUS WAS JEWISH!*
> 
> And Paul wrote in the NEW TESTAMENT that homosexuality was an abomination. I posted it for you twice. ROMANS I. That's a Christian text.
> 
> Albiet, one could say it's a Jewish text (despite it being written in Greek) because it was written by a Jew, that being Paul of Tarsus.
> 
> BUT, I know you are losing, because you have ceased to even TRY to discuss the issue and have fallen back to the 20 questions tactic.
> 
> When you are losing start attacking the person who is winning by "interrogating" them with question, in a deperate attempt to put them on the defensive.
> 
> It won't work. You have conceded you can't get around the texts I quoted by abandoning even trying to challenge them.
> 
> Thus, you are WRONG about Jesus approving of gay marriage.
> 
> I agree, that you lost that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Yeshua was Jewish. He was in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, and He was crucified and rose again, which is the Easter celebration.
> 
> However...........a year or two back, Christians were celebrating Easter a full week BEFORE Passover.
> 
> Oh yeah brainiac, the ENTIRE OT is Jewish. Basically, the first 5 books are the Torah, and the rest is pretty much a history of the Jewish people.
> 
> No........it was never originally written in Greek.
> 
> Try again Teabagger 'Tard.
Click to expand...

 
Um genius.  The New Testament was originally in Greek.

The Old Testament was in Hebrew and some Aramic.

The reason the NT was put in Greek was because it was a sort of "universal" language that many people knew.  Like today where English is the language of business.  There were many peoples in the Roman Empire.  There needed to be a "common tongue" to put the NT in.  Thus, it was written in Greek.


----------



## ABikerSailor

We were originally talking about the OT, where Leviticus was concerned.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My feeling is "you've seen one politician; you've seen them all".
> 
> I didn't vote for either McCain or Obama as I knew one of them was going to win and neither one of them were worth a wooden nickel. I voted for Barr. Not because I expected him to be any different, but because I wanted to cast a vote and I wanted it to be seen as a vote against the two parties in charge.
> 
> I'm sure it didn't even get noticed, but maybe if enough of us started telling both parties to get screwed one or both would change.
> 
> I know, I know that is wishful thinking, but hey, that is how I feel.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY.
> 
> It never works. Every time people have done this, they only elect the person, they least want.
> 
> This has been true since Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.
> 
> Any time you vote third party you simply split the vote and the other side wins.
> 
> John Anderson proved this. Ross Perot proves this. Ralph Nader proved this.
> 
> I could go on and on. It never works in the presidential election. It just gets the other guy elected.
> 
> I know those doing so think they are making a stand but in that they are sadly deluded. History does not lie and the history of the third party vote in presidential elections is only failure.
> 
> If that "stand" made any real difference we would have a viable third party by now. We don't, because it dosn't work.
> 
> Now, I expect you to get mad at me and rant about the Democrats and Republicans, but that isn't the point. It doesn't matter how much they suck, that doesn't change the history.
> 
> The only way that works is for one of the main parties to fall, and the last time that happened, the Whiggs fell, leading to the rise of the Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me. It mattered not which one won. One was going to win.
> 
> In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for. Both parties have lost my support. I really don't care which one wins any more.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.

and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have.  He doesn't want you to fight back.  He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.

That's a big mistake.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> We were originally talking about the OT, where Leviticus was concerned.
> 
> Do try to keep up.


 
No, we are talking about the BIBLE. Who needs to keep up? 

YOU brought up the Bible by bringing up Jesus WHO ISN'T IN THE OT EITHER! 

You can't narrow the focus of the debate just because you are losing, (and believe me, you aren't the first person who has tried that lame tactic WHEN losing)


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY.
> 
> It never works. Every time people have done this, they only elect the person, they least want.
> 
> This has been true since Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.
> 
> Any time you vote third party you simply split the vote and the other side wins.
> 
> John Anderson proved this. Ross Perot proves this. Ralph Nader proved this.
> 
> I could go on and on. It never works in the presidential election. It just gets the other guy elected.
> 
> I know those doing so think they are making a stand but in that they are sadly deluded. History does not lie and the history of the third party vote in presidential elections is only failure.
> 
> If that "stand" made any real difference we would have a viable third party by now. We don't, because it dosn't work.
> 
> Now, I expect you to get mad at me and rant about the Democrats and Republicans, but that isn't the point. It doesn't matter how much they suck, that doesn't change the history.
> 
> The only way that works is for one of the main parties to fall, and the last time that happened, the Whiggs fell, leading to the rise of the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me. It mattered not which one won. One was going to win.
> 
> In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for. Both parties have lost my support. I really don't care which one wins any more.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have.  He doesn't want you to fight back.  He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong.  The parties want you to support them.  They don't care which one of them wins, because they both win regardless of which man sits in the Oval Office.

Whether McCain won in '08 or Obama won we were bound to be screwed one way or another.  As long as people continue to support these corrupt parties we are screwed.

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were originally talking about the OT, where Leviticus was concerned.
> 
> Do try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are talking about the BIBLE.  Who needs to keep up?
> 
> YOU brought up the Bible by bringing up Jesus WHO ISN'T IN THE OT EITHER!
> 
> You can't narrow the focus of the debate just because you are losing, (and believe me, you aren't the first person who has tried that lame tactic WHEN losing)
Click to expand...


No, you can bring up anything you want from that book.  

Just remember to reference what conversation you are having.  We were talking about homosexuality, and you used the book Leviticus for verification.

I asked what a Christian was doing with a book for Jewish priests?

You countered with something out of the NT and said it was Greek.

Like I said Teabagger Slow Am I, do try to keep up.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me. It mattered not which one won. One was going to win.
> 
> In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for. Both parties have lost my support. I really don't care which one wins any more.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have. He doesn't want you to fight back. He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are wrong. The parties want you to support them. They don't care which one of them wins, because they both win regardless of which man sits in the Oval Office.
> 
> Whether McCain won in '08 or Obama won we were bound to be screwed one way or another. As long as people continue to support these corrupt parties we are screwed.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Would McCain have brought Sheik Mohammed to New York and read him his Miranda rights?

Would McCan have had this healthcare attrocity (on which HE voted no)

You are dead wrong.  McCain was far from perfect, but he would have been far better than Obama.

Look Neither Ford or Nixon were perfect presidents either.  But compare their administrations to Carter.   Nixon was corrupt as hell, but he didn't do a 10th of the damage to this country that Carter did, (and for which we are still paying in Iran).


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were originally talking about the OT, where Leviticus was concerned.
> 
> Do try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are talking about the BIBLE. Who needs to keep up?
> 
> YOU brought up the Bible by bringing up Jesus WHO ISN'T IN THE OT EITHER!
> 
> You can't narrow the focus of the debate just because you are losing, (and believe me, you aren't the first person who has tried that lame tactic WHEN losing)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can bring up anything you want from that book.
> 
> Just remember to reference what conversation you are having. We were talking about homosexuality, and you used the book Leviticus for verification.
> 
> I asked what a Christian was doing with a book for Jewish priests?
> 
> You countered with something out of the NT and said it was Greek.
> 
> Like I said Teabagger Slow Am I, do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

 
You asked something you hoped would work. It didn't.

JESUS TAUGHT OUT OF THAT SAME BOOK FOR JEWISH PRIESTS. 

When was the last time you ever read the the Gospels. Jesus taught right out of the Tanakh. When he taught in the Synagogue, they brought him the Tanakh and he read to the people out of it.

But we who follow Jesus shouldn't read the Jewish scriptures?

Pal you lost that one. Get over it. 

You think you are the first person, I've ever carved into little bits intellectually or ended up very sorry they took me on. I warned you, you would be sorry.

The next time you come in a thread calling one of my friends names, you better think twice. I might be there, I and might decide to carve you up again.

I must say, it was thoroughly enjoyable. 



I don't like men who are bullies and think they can bully women online or in person. I do something about it. I don't need to run to ops. I reduce them to the wimpering cowards they are all by myself.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY.
> 
> It never works. Every time people have done this, they only elect the person, they least want.
> 
> This has been true since Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.
> 
> Any time you vote third party you simply split the vote and the other side wins.
> 
> John Anderson proved this. Ross Perot proves this. Ralph Nader proved this.
> 
> I could go on and on. It never works in the presidential election. It just gets the other guy elected.
> 
> I know those doing so think they are making a stand but in that they are sadly deluded. History does not lie and the history of the third party vote in presidential elections is only failure.
> 
> If that "stand" made any real difference we would have a viable third party by now. We don't, because it dosn't work.
> 
> Now, I expect you to get mad at me and rant about the Democrats and Republicans, but that isn't the point. It doesn't matter how much they suck, that doesn't change the history.
> 
> The only way that works is for one of the main parties to fall, and the last time that happened, the Whiggs fell, leading to the rise of the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me. It mattered not which one won. One was going to win.
> 
> In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for. Both parties have lost my support. I really don't care which one wins any more.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have.  He doesn't want you to fight back.  He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
Click to expand...


Let me just put it this way: If it wasn't Obama's "death panels" then it would have been McCain's furtherance of the Patriot Act (and yes, I know Obama hasn't ended that despicable act).  McCain would have made things worse in that area.  So, whether or not it was McCain or Obama things were not going to improve in this nation.

So, why should I support McCain over Obama?  Why should I support either one of them?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have. He doesn't want you to fight back. He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are wrong. The parties want you to support them. They don't care which one of them wins, because they both win regardless of which man sits in the Oval Office.
> 
> Whether McCain won in '08 or Obama won we were bound to be screwed one way or another. As long as people continue to support these corrupt parties we are screwed.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would McCain have brought Sheik Mohammed to New York and read him his Miranda rights?
> 
> Would McCan have had this healthcare attrocity (on which HE voted no)
> 
> You are dead wrong.  McCain was far from perfect, but he would have been far better than Obama.
> 
> Look Neither Ford or Nixon were perfect presidents either.  But compare their administrations to Carter.   Nixon was corrupt as hell, but he didn't do a 10th of the damage to this country that Carter did, (and for which we are still paying in Iran).
Click to expand...


No, McCain would have furthered the Patriot Act and Wiretapping, "for the good of America".  

Don't ask me which would be worse the expansion of the Patriot Act or Obama's Health Care Reform.  I simply don't know which would be worse.

Immie


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> As I said, neither McCain nor Obama were "wanted" by me. It mattered not which one won. One was going to win.
> 
> In fact, there wasn't a single candidate from either party throughout the entire campaign that I would have voted for. Both parties have lost my support. I really don't care which one wins any more.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have. He doesn't want you to fight back. He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me just put it this way: If it wasn't Obama's "death panels" then it would have been McCain's furtherance of the Patriot Act (and yes, I know Obama hasn't ended that despicable act). McCain would have made things worse in that area. So, whether or not it was McCain or Obama things were not going to improve in this nation.
> 
> So, why should I support McCain over Obama? Why should I support either one of them?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
A)  That's a joke.  McCain was going on about the Patriot Act and the need to get rid of Torture, blah blah blah.  Increase the Patriot Act?  LOL

B).  Show me one right anyone lost from the Patriot Act?  People went on and on about the Patriot Act, but I asked people for EIGHT YEARS to give me one right they lost, and they NEVER could answer that one.  They would just claim there were anecdotals of this person or that person, which means, BS.

C)  Obama's plan WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.  It will put all that in the hands of government and you won't be able to decide whether you live or die.  

Don't believe me, take a look at Canada, England, Cuba, on and on.  That's the model Obama is following, and if you don't believe that, look at the part of the bill that follows the Cuban model for what Doctors have to do after leaving medical school.  Its all in the bill.

You are playing the "they all do it game."  But they don't all do it.  The Patriot Act was to make it easier so we would not have the road blocks in our way that kept us from preventing 9/11.

Obama care has no claim to our national interest.  Or protecting this country.  It's an ATTACK on this country.  

There is no way to argue they are the same.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are wrong. The parties want you to support them. They don't care which one of them wins, because they both win regardless of which man sits in the Oval Office.
> 
> Whether McCain won in '08 or Obama won we were bound to be screwed one way or another. As long as people continue to support these corrupt parties we are screwed.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would McCain have brought Sheik Mohammed to New York and read him his Miranda rights?
> 
> Would McCan have had this healthcare attrocity (on which HE voted no)
> 
> You are dead wrong. McCain was far from perfect, but he would have been far better than Obama.
> 
> Look Neither Ford or Nixon were perfect presidents either. But compare their administrations to Carter. Nixon was corrupt as hell, but he didn't do a 10th of the damage to this country that Carter did, (and for which we are still paying in Iran).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, McCain would have furthered the Patriot Act and Wiretapping, "for the good of America".
> 
> Don't ask me which would be worse the expansion of the Patriot Act or Obama's Health Care Reform. I simply don't know which would be worse.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Wire tapping on terrorists is the same as death panels?

I'm sorry like I said, you are playing the "they all do it game."  This is a game of equivalence and they are NOT equivalent.

Not even close.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain when the death panels are true, because that's the attitude that will bring them about.
> 
> and BTW, that's the attitude Obama wants you to have. He doesn't want you to fight back. He wants you to become discouraged, give up and not care who is in power.
> 
> That's a big mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me just put it this way: If it wasn't Obama's "death panels" then it would have been McCain's furtherance of the Patriot Act (and yes, I know Obama hasn't ended that despicable act). McCain would have made things worse in that area. So, whether or not it was McCain or Obama things were not going to improve in this nation.
> 
> So, why should I support McCain over Obama? Why should I support either one of them?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A)  That's a joke.  McCain was going on about the Patriot Act and the need to get rid of Torture, blah blah blah.  Increase the Patriot Act?  LOL
> 
> B).  Show me one right anyone lost from the Patriot Act?  People went on and on about the Patriot Act, but I asked people for EIGHT YEARS to give me one right they lost, and they NEVER could answer that one.  They would just claim there were anecdotals of this person or that person, which means, BS.
> 
> C)  Obama's plan WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.  It will put all that in the hands of government and you won't be able to decide whether you live or die.
> 
> Don't believe me, take a look at Canada, England, Cuba, on and on.  That's the model Obama is following, and if you don't believe that, look at the part of the bill that follows the Cuban model for what Doctors have to do after leaving medical school.  Its all in the bill.
> 
> You are playing the "they all do it game."  But they don't all do it.  The Patriot Act was to make it easier so we would not have the road blocks in our way that kept us from preventing 9/11.
> 
> Obama care has no claim to our national interest.  Or protecting this country.  It's an ATTACK on this country.
> 
> There is no way to argue they are the same.
Click to expand...


The Patriot Act was an affront to freedom loving individuals everywhere.  Whether you are Muslim or not the Patriot Act opened up the door to you being accused of being an enemy of the state and arrested and held without cause.  In that manner, it too was an attack on this country.

Health Care Reform is an affront to our freedoms as well.  

And yes, they all do it!  Both parties are guilty of the same kind of shit.  The only difference is which right are they going to take first.  Their goals are to take all of your rights, Which ones go first is the only difference between the parties.

You can support the Republican Party if you wish.  I refuse to do so. 

When one party starts showing me that they want to be fiscally and socially responsible then I will start paying attention to them.  Until then... screw them both.  When they start showing me that they do more than paying lip service to "smaller government", I might actually consider voting for one of these parties.

In the meantime, they just keep lying to you and you keep soaking in the promises of Washington elites who campaign with an (R) after their names.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would McCain have brought Sheik Mohammed to New York and read him his Miranda rights?
> 
> Would McCan have had this healthcare attrocity (on which HE voted no)
> 
> You are dead wrong. McCain was far from perfect, but he would have been far better than Obama.
> 
> Look Neither Ford or Nixon were perfect presidents either. But compare their administrations to Carter. Nixon was corrupt as hell, but he didn't do a 10th of the damage to this country that Carter did, (and for which we are still paying in Iran).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, McCain would have furthered the Patriot Act and Wiretapping, "for the good of America".
> 
> Don't ask me which would be worse the expansion of the Patriot Act or Obama's Health Care Reform. I simply don't know which would be worse.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wire tapping on terrorists is the same as death panels?
> 
> I'm sorry like I said, you are playing the "they all do it game."  This is a game of equivalence and they are NOT equivalent.
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...


It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with.  It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East.  I don't, but you get the drift.

It is un-American.

My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists.  It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them.  Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans?  Probably.  In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.  

That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.

Immie


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, McCain would have furthered the Patriot Act and Wiretapping, "for the good of America".
> 
> Don't ask me which would be worse the expansion of the Patriot Act or Obama's Health Care Reform. I simply don't know which would be worse.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wire tapping on terrorists is the same as death panels?
> 
> I'm sorry like I said, you are playing the "they all do it game." This is a game of equivalence and they are NOT equivalent.
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with. It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East. I don't, but you get the drift.
> 
> It is un-American.
> 
> My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists. It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them. Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans? Probably. In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.
> 
> That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
Let's be realistic.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  

You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that.  They did.  Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.

We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME?  After 9/11?

If they are innocent wonderful.  But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.


----------



## Immanuel

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wire tapping on terrorists is the same as death panels?
> 
> I'm sorry like I said, you are playing the "they all do it game." This is a game of equivalence and they are NOT equivalent.
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with. It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East. I don't, but you get the drift.
> 
> It is un-American.
> 
> My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists. It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them. Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans? Probably. In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.
> 
> That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that.  They did.  Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME?  After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful.  But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
Click to expand...


How about the Democratic Party supporter that has a brother in the Middle East, say working on a project in Iraq.  They tap his phone and then decide that he is a problem and they either arrest him, or maybe during the wiretapping they discover that he has a mistress on the side... Fox News would love this story... wouldn't it?  No one has to know that they got their information from an unwarranted wiretap.

Immie


----------



## oreo

CMike said:


> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It





  I went to my tea party in C. Spgs.CO today.   We had a little over 2000 tea partiers there -and our very minut--tea party crashers--came from the high school across the street--which consisted of about 5 very young teenagers that really had no idea what they were doing--LOL.  They left a little embarrassed.

*Anyway--the teapartycrasher.org--is an utter failure.  In fact--I just tried to get back to their web-site and they have already closed it down.*


----------



## teapartysamurai

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with. It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East. I don't, but you get the drift.
> 
> It is un-American.
> 
> My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists. It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them. Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans? Probably. In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.
> 
> That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that. They did. Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME? After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful. But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Democratic Party supporter that has a brother in the Middle East, say working on a project in Iraq. They tap his phone and then decide that he is a problem and they either arrest him, or maybe during the wiretapping they discover that he has a mistress on the side... Fox News would love this story... wouldn't it? No one has to know that they got their information from an unwarranted wiretap.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
That's a hypothetical.  I don't debate hypotheticals, because they aren't based in reality nor is their any evidence for them.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video you posted was filmed by left wingers to discredit the right. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?
> 
> To claim that as 'evidence' is just fucking laughable. Truly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.
> 
> Rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to YOU never posting ANY facts, just ranting?
Click to expand...


WOW that sounds an awful lot like YOU and the fact that you avoided my responses to your spin as I called you out for your lack of honesty is further proof of your dishonesty and lack of integrity.

What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?? And here I thought you wanted an honest debate and yet once again you avoid one so you can attack other posters personally. 

How typical.


----------



## drsmith1072

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!  There are plenty of RINOs like Voinivich, McCain, and Snowe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how the GOP eats its own
> 
> McCain was the best candidate the GOP had to run in 2008 and is still superior to anyone they have in 2012. Both Snowe and Voinivich represent the constituency where they were elected. If they don't meet the desires of red State Republicans...thats too bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best candidate?  In who's opinion?
> 
> I for one would have voted for Obama over McCain if I had no other choices.  I have disliked him since... hell, I can't remember ever having liked him.  I respect the fact that he served his country, but I would never vote for him.  Not in a million years.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


In whose opinion?? uh that would be the opinion of the majority of republicans who voted in the 2008 primaries in order to make him the party's nominee.

You may not like him but he is who the party chose to represent them as who they thought was the best candidate.


----------



## drsmith1072

Immanuel said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can ask, but you have no right to make them leave and even if you do ask, if you don't take a public stand against them, then whatever they say and do before you do ask them to leave affects your movement.
> 
> Without taking a public stand against them, then and there, you are letting their actions speak for you. To go along with that, as long as you let them get away with it, they will be known as part of your group. If you don't call them out publicly then they will forever be known as part of you.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And asking them to leave is NOT taking a public stand?????
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask them to leave.  Who knows about it but you and the creep with the racist sign?  No one.
> 
> You (the leaders of the movement) get up on stage and make a public announcement that they are not welcomed at the event gets public notice.
> 
> The leaders of the movement go on nationwide tv and publicly state that those people in no way represent the views of the movement.  That gets public notice.
> 
> Casually asking them to leave does nothing for your cause nor does beating the shit out of them as Pale Rider indicated would be his solution.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


WOW i actually agree with immie. If the leaders of the movement (whoever they are) speak out against these people when they have the mic then there would be nothing for lefties to emulate or exaggerate IF they do infultrate. 

I would like to say again that I believe trying to infultrate the party events is WRONG and should not be done. I believe as I always have that dissent is patriotic and it's nice to see so many righties have come around to that way of thinking. 
I just hope they have the integrity to continue believing this when a republican is elected president again and they don't go back to how they were under W when any dissenters were called un-American and unpatriotic surrendermonkeys.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wire tapping on terrorists is the same as death panels?
> 
> I'm sorry like I said, you are playing the "they all do it game." This is a game of equivalence and they are NOT equivalent.
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with. It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East. I don't, but you get the drift.
> 
> It is un-American.
> 
> My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists. It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them. Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans? Probably. In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.
> 
> That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that.  They did.  Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME?  After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful.  But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
Click to expand...


So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??

You seem to have things backwards. 

Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Whore of Republican states that while she posts "facts" from links that are GOP blogs.
> 
> Rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to YOU never posting ANY facts, just ranting?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW that sounds an awful lot like YOU and the fact that you avoided my responses to your spin as I called you out for your lack of honesty is further proof of your dishonesty and lack of integrity.
> 
> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?? And here I thought you wanted an honest debate and yet once again you avoid one so you can attack other posters personally.
> 
> How typical.
Click to expand...

 
A) I was talking to ABikernitwit about ranting and not posting any evidence, not you.

B)  The only two bits of "evidence" liberals posted in this thread are photos I already proved are bogus and a Youtube video that showed no evidence other than an infiltrator holding up a sign for a cameraman, which they obviousy arranged beforehand.

That's not evidence.  It's more leftwing fraud.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the wiretapping of terrorists I have a problem with. It is wiretapping my phones because I happen to have contacts in the Middle East. I don't, but you get the drift.
> 
> It is un-American.
> 
> My problem is not the wiretapping of terrorists. It is the intrusion of the government on private citizens lives without so much as a smidge of evidence against them. Is it being done today on non-Muslim Americans? Probably. In fact, it has more than likely been going on for a hell of a long time.
> 
> That doesn't make me feel any better that it was a Republican President that pushed for this.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that. They did. Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME? After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful. But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
Click to expand...

 
I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.

Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.

The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.

Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.

The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.

Is the Patriot Act perfect?  No.  NOTHING IS.  That's the problem with liberalism.  If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."  

Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.

Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.

It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.


----------



## teapartysamurai

oreo said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to my tea party in C. Spgs.CO today. We had a little over 2000 tea partiers there -and our very minut--tea party crashers--came from the high school across the street--which consisted of about 5 very young teenagers that really had no idea what they were doing--LOL. They left a little embarrassed.
> 
> *Anyway--the teapartycrasher.org--is an utter failure. In fact--I just tried to get back to their web-site and they have already closed it down.*
Click to expand...

 
That's kind of funny.  I wouldn't have been too hard on the kids.  They are naive and I'm sure they were led into it by their brain washing teachers.

Poor kids!


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that. They did. Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME? After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful. But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Democratic Party supporter that has a brother in the Middle East, say working on a project in Iraq. They tap his phone and then decide that he is a problem and they either arrest him, or maybe during the wiretapping they discover that he has a mistress on the side... Fox News would love this story... wouldn't it? No one has to know that they got their information from an unwarranted wiretap.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a hypothetical.  I don't debate hypotheticals, because they aren't based in reality nor is their any evidence for them.
Click to expand...


FAIL.  Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen.  Sheesh, you are ignorant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that. They did. Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME? After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful. But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect?  No.  NOTHING IS.  That's the problem with liberalism.  If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
Click to expand...


You and your thinking is so why the Dems are going to kick our asses this election cycle.

My Dem friends are cheering the Tea Party on to more and more excessive demonstrations of nonsense, and you all keep falling for it.


----------



## CMike

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect?  No.  NOTHING IS.  That's the problem with liberalism.  If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your thinking is so why the Dems are going to kick our asses this election cycle.
> 
> My Dem friends are cheering the Tea Party on to more and more excessive demonstrations of nonsense, and you all keep falling for it.
Click to expand...

I bet they are.

I am sure the Tea Party will be happy to oblige in telling you liberal dems the feelings of Americans.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to YOU never posting ANY facts, just ranting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW that sounds an awful lot like YOU and the fact that you avoided my responses to your spin as I called you out for your lack of honesty is further proof of your dishonesty and lack of integrity.
> 
> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?? And here I thought you wanted an honest debate and yet once again you avoid one so you can attack other posters personally.
> 
> How typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) I was talking to ABikernitwit about ranting and not posting any evidence, not you.
> 
> B)  The only two bits of "evidence" liberals posted in this thread are photos I already proved are bogus and a Youtube video that showed no evidence other than an infiltrator holding up a sign for a cameraman, which they obviousy arranged beforehand.
> 
> That's not evidence.  It's more leftwing fraud.
Click to expand...


A) doesn't matter WHO you think you were talking about you seem to be describing YOU. and the claim that you make in B is a perfect example of you being less than honest.

B) and NO you didn't prove (look up the word please) all of the photos were fake you showed that one was older claiming it was actualyl a liberal, which is unknown, and then claimed that all were fakes because the one was. Then you CLAIM with no proof to support that claim that the guy with the swastika on his sign who was STANDING ON THE STAGE WITH THE SIGN IN VIEW was a plant. That is NOT honest and it is NOT proof. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part. 

You really need to look up the word "PROOF" so you can begin to understand that repetition of your OPINIONS doesn't prove anything. 

BTW I am still waiting on you prove that the nutjubs that have appeared at tea parties since their mass parties began were plants. I keep hearing that claim and similar but have seen no evidence to support it.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
> 
> You don't think they read mail in WWII or anything like that. They did. Busted a couple sabateur rings of Germans who had infiltrated into the country, that way.
> 
> We shouldn't find out what someone is doing if they are calling people in the ME? After 9/11?
> 
> If they are innocent wonderful. But if they aren't, the fact that some people think you shouldn't do that is no consolation when you are counting the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect?  No.  NOTHING IS.  That's the problem with liberalism.  If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
Click to expand...


The only ignorance is being presented by you. Either that or you are merely feigning ignorance and being flat out dishonest. 

Furthermore, we weren't terrorist attack free for 8 years after 9/11 however, thanks again for showing that you can't be honest. the shoe bomber, DC sniper, our embassies overseas were hit. SO please stop lying and at least try to be honest about it. 

BTW care to explain HOW obama "relaxed" the patriot act?? Got anything REAL or are vague generalities all you have to offer? 

Oh and in case you missed YOU made the satement about how it's OK to wiretap innocent people and that IF they are shown to be innocent, wonderful. I find it funny how people who are allegedly so supportive and defenseive of the constitution can trample it so easy. 

So I will ask again and you will probably continue to rant in avoidance but are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?


----------



## Flopper

I think the Teabaggers will help the Republicans in the midterm elections because most independent voters and moderates just don't turn out for the midterms.  It is usually the party faithfuls and the mad as hell crowd that show up at the polls.  The presidential elections are different story.   Rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat reload", "Join the conservative revolution", "Take to the streets and fight back" is not going to play well with the mainstream voters.  For the Republicans to have a shot at the white house, they are going to have rein in the far right.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Democratic Party supporter that has a brother in the Middle East, say working on a project in Iraq. They tap his phone and then decide that he is a problem and they either arrest him, or maybe during the wiretapping they discover that he has a mistress on the side... Fox News would love this story... wouldn't it? No one has to know that they got their information from an unwarranted wiretap.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a hypothetical. I don't debate hypotheticals, because they aren't based in reality nor is their any evidence for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FAIL. Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen. Sheesh, you are ignorant.
Click to expand...

 
NICE TRY!  

A)  Obamcare is REALITY.  It's passed and signed into law.

B)  We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!

On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. NOTHING IS. That's the problem with liberalism. If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your thinking is so why the Dems are going to kick our asses this election cycle.
> 
> My Dem friends are cheering the Tea Party on to more and more excessive demonstrations of nonsense, and you all keep falling for it.
Click to expand...

 


You keep living in your fantasy.

But the fact you can't refute ANYTHING I'VE SAID, and can only attack me personaly not only proves your fear of what I've said, but your deep down feeling that you know you are living in a fantasy, even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.


----------



## teapartysamurai

CMike said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. NOTHING IS. That's the problem with liberalism. If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and your thinking is so why the Dems are going to kick our asses this election cycle.
> 
> My Dem friends are cheering the Tea Party on to more and more excessive demonstrations of nonsense, and you all keep falling for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet they are.
> 
> I am sure the Tea Party will be happy to oblige in telling you liberal dems the feelings of Americans.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, funny.

If his "Dem friends" are the majority, then how come that pathetic "coffee party" didn't take off!  

This is about as pathetic as when liberals told me Err America (aka Air Amerikka) was going to squash Rush Limbaugh.  

They always live in their fantasies, and they HATE us because we refuse to live in that fantasy as well.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW that sounds an awful lot like YOU and the fact that you avoided my responses to your spin as I called you out for your lack of honesty is further proof of your dishonesty and lack of integrity.
> 
> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?? And here I thought you wanted an honest debate and yet once again you avoid one so you can attack other posters personally.
> 
> How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) I was talking to ABikernitwit about ranting and not posting any evidence, not you.
> 
> B) The only two bits of "evidence" liberals posted in this thread are photos I already proved are bogus and a Youtube video that showed no evidence other than an infiltrator holding up a sign for a cameraman, which they obviousy arranged beforehand.
> 
> That's not evidence. It's more leftwing fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) doesn't matter WHO you think you were talking about you seem to be describing YOU. and the claim that you make in B is a perfect example of you being less than honest.
> 
> B) and NO you didn't prove (look up the word please) all of the photos were fake you showed that one was older claiming it was actualyl a liberal, which is unknown, and then claimed that all were fakes because the one was. Then you CLAIM with no proof to support that claim that the guy with the swastika on his sign who was STANDING ON THE STAGE WITH THE SIGN IN VIEW was a plant. That is NOT honest and it is NOT proof. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part.
> 
> You really need to look up the word "PROOF" so you can begin to understand that repetition of your OPINIONS doesn't prove anything.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you prove that the nutjubs that have appeared at tea parties since their mass parties began were plants. I keep hearing that claim and similar but have seen no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

 
In other words facts don't matter to you, because you have your mind made up about me.

But it's laughable you talk about proof, since *YOUR SIDE HAS PROVIDED NO PROOF FOR THEIR PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!*

Time to wake up from your little fantasy. Just because your side produces some photos does NOT mean we have to take them as legitimate.

Not only did I provide evidence one was fake (as it was 2003) someone else provided evidence Malkin was set up. The word is FAIL.

Every time I have provided photos of left wing protestors *I HAVE INCLUDED THE URL OF THE SOURCE!!!*

NO urls have been provided of those photos of supposed tea parties. Only assertions of what protests they are from.

The ONLY reason not to include a url is if one knows the site where those photos came from is suspect and even the left knows it.

*SORRY BUT IT'S A BIG FAIL FROM YOUR SIDE.* 

This boils down to nothing more than what Dan Rather pulled with his fraud National Guard records for Bush. Rather was convinced it was true, so he didn't need to provide evidence to back them up.

That's all your side is saying here. That's why the rest of your lefty pals have run away from this thread. They know they are busted as trying to purport a fake. Too bad you haven't figured that out yet.



Maybe the big text will help it sink into your brain that your side LOST and has already run away.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. NOTHING IS. That's the problem with liberalism. If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only ignorance is being presented by you. Either that or you are merely feigning ignorance and being flat out dishonest.
> 
> Furthermore, we weren't terrorist attack free for 8 years after 9/11 however, thanks again for showing that you can't be honest. the shoe bomber, DC sniper, our embassies overseas were hit. SO please stop lying and at least try to be honest about it.
> 
> BTW care to explain HOW obama "relaxed" the patriot act?? Got anything REAL or are vague generalities all you have to offer?
> 
> Oh and in case you missed YOU made the satement about how it's OK to wiretap innocent people and that IF they are shown to be innocent, wonderful. I find it funny how people who are allegedly so supportive and defenseive of the constitution can trample it so easy.
> 
> So I will ask again and you will probably continue to rant in avoidance but are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

 
Yeah yeah yeah.

Give us a major terrorist attack since 9/11 and since the Patriot Act was put into place.

Give us the American Citizen who has has his rights "trampled."  The only people the left have been able to give to me is Jose Padilla and Sami Al-Arian.  Which is a total laugh because they were both guilty as hell.

(And I hate to break it to some liberals.  Al-Arian is not an American Citizen)

Further it was the attitude of people on your side that kept the DC snipers free to kill and kill again, since the FBI, DC police etc, refused to do any racial profiling.  Despite witnesses who had seen "brown men" at the scene the "experts" insisted they were "angry white men" so John Mohmmed and Lee Malvo were free to kill again.

In a way they were doing racial profiling.  Because it's only okay to racial profile "angry white men" I guess.  


Bad choice to bring up the DC snipers.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Flopper said:


> I think the Teabaggers will help the Republicans in the midterm elections because most independent voters and moderates just don't turn out for the midterms. It is usually the party faithfuls and the mad as hell crowd that show up at the polls. The presidential elections are different story. Rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat reload", "Join the conservative revolution", "Take to the streets and fight back" is not going to play well with the mainstream voters. For the Republicans to have a shot at the white house, they are going to have rein in the far right.


 
That's what Democrats basically said, in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004.

I've seen this kind of thinking proved wrong more than once.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent??
> 
> You seem to have things backwards.
> 
> Oh and just have to say, love the fearmongering and "24" rhetoric to justify violating someone's rights. I am sure jack bauer would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. NOTHING IS. That's the problem with liberalism. If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your thinking is so why the Dems are going to kick our asses this election cycle.
> 
> My Dem friends are cheering the Tea Party on to more and more excessive demonstrations of nonsense, and you all keep falling for it.
Click to expand...

 
I just remember what your meme sounds like.

It reminds me of when Nixon was reelected in a landslide in 1972, and this big liberal comentator (women, I don't remember her name) was appalled and couldn't understand how Nixon won.

"No one I knew voted for him!"  

This is the insular world of liberals.  They think they are the mainstream, but look at the hate they have for the real mainstream when it rises and decides to fight liberalism.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a hypothetical. I don't debate hypotheticals, because they aren't based in reality nor is their any evidence for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL. Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen. Sheesh, you are ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A)  Obamcare is REALITY.  It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B)  We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
Click to expand...


It's better than nice he called you out on your BS. You rail against the healthcare bill based on your hypothetical beliefs concerning what you BELIEVE MIGHT happen in the FUTURE instead of reality which hasn't happened yet. 

Do you get it yet or are you still trying to spin to CYA? LOL

Once again you show that you are NOT honest because IF you were honest you would admit that you are WRONG.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a hypothetical. I don't debate hypotheticals, because they aren't based in reality nor is their any evidence for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL. Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen. Sheesh, you are ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A)  Obamcare is REALITY.  It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B)  We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
Click to expand...


Son, you truly don't think, do you?  It is a hypothetical as to what will happen in the future with Obamacare.  Thus you can't label it a failure.  You are not very bright.  If you are who the TP are trotting out, they will be slaughtered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TeaPartySamurai is fun for grins and chuckles, I do admit that.  He lightens up my day with his prancing and dancing, fringing and whinging.

What a sad, pathetic character.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> A) I was talking to ABikernitwit about ranting and not posting any evidence, not you.
> 
> B) The only two bits of "evidence" liberals posted in this thread are photos I already proved are bogus and a Youtube video that showed no evidence other than an infiltrator holding up a sign for a cameraman, which they obviousy arranged beforehand.
> 
> That's not evidence. It's more leftwing fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) doesn't matter WHO you think you were talking about you seem to be describing YOU. and the claim that you make in B is a perfect example of you being less than honest.
> 
> B) and NO you didn't prove (look up the word please) all of the photos were fake you showed that one was older claiming it was actualyl a liberal, which is unknown, and then claimed that all were fakes because the one was. Then you CLAIM with no proof to support that claim that the guy with the swastika on his sign who was STANDING ON THE STAGE WITH THE SIGN IN VIEW was a plant. That is NOT honest and it is NOT proof. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part.
> 
> You really need to look up the word "PROOF" so you can begin to understand that repetition of your OPINIONS doesn't prove anything.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you prove that the nutjubs that have appeared at tea parties since their mass parties began were plants. I keep hearing that claim and similar but have seen no evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words facts don't matter to you, because you have your mind made up about me.
> 
> But it's laughable you talk about proof, since *YOUR SIDE HAS PROVIDED NO PROOF FOR THEIR PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Time to wake up from your little fantasy. Just because your side produces some photos does NOT mean we have to take them as legitimate.
> 
> Not only did I provide evidence one was fake (as it was 2003) someone else provided evidence Malkin was set up. The word is FAIL.
> 
> Every time I have provided photos of left wing protestors *I HAVE INCLUDED THE URL OF THE SOURCE!!!*
> 
> NO urls have been provided of those photos of supposed tea parties. Only assertions of what protests they are from.
> 
> The ONLY reason not to include a url is if one knows the site where those photos came from is suspect and even the left knows it.
> 
> *SORRY BUT IT'S A BIG FAIL FROM YOUR SIDE.*
> 
> This boils down to nothing more than what Dan Rather pulled with his fraud National Guard records for Bush. Rather was convinced it was true, so he didn't need to provide evidence to back them up.
> 
> That's all your side is saying here. That's why the rest of your lefty pals have run away from this thread. They know they are busted as trying to purport a fake. Too bad you haven't figured that out yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big text will help it sink into your brain that your side LOST and has already run away.
Click to expand...


LOL increasing the font size isn't a valid way to substantiate your arguments. 

You made the false claim that one photo being falsely represented shows that the others are false and that is dishonest of YOU. One has nothing to do with the others and for you to claim that it does, exposes you as dishonest. Based on your own logic that if one was false then all were false, then all of your claims are false. 

BTW I see that you once again failed to provide proof of your claim that the guy with the swastika sign, that was on the left side of the stage with the sign being held up openly, was a plant. You also failed to prove that the nutjobs at previous tea party events were ALL plants. 

The fact that you have a habit of avoiding FACTS that don't suit your spin leads me to believe that you know you don't have the proof or you would have provided it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai is for giggles not seriousness, Dr.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the ignorance we have about national security.
> 
> Terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do not have a right to our court system, our laws, or our protections.
> 
> The Patriot Act was designed to protect American Citizens from terrorists who hide behind our laws to kill innocent American Citizens as they did on 9/11.
> 
> Liberals rant on and on about what could happen, but they never can bring up actual evidence of any American citizens hurt other than those who obviously were terrorists themselves like Jose Padilla.
> 
> The fact that we were terrorist attack free for eight years after 9/11 speaks to the efficiency of the Patriot Act.
> 
> Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. NOTHING IS. That's the problem with liberalism. If it isn't "perfect" as they ascribe perfection, then it must be done away with, in order for them to have their "social justice."
> 
> Social justice that is, that never works as evidenced by the walls the Clinton admin's Jamie Gorelick put between intelligence agencies that led to 9/11.
> 
> Since the Patriot Act has been relaxed in the Obama admin we already had terrorism in the guise of the Fort Hood shooter, and other terrorist acts.
> 
> It is no misconception that the Patriot Act helped keep this country safe, nor is it misconception that we dismantle those protections at our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ignorance is being presented by you. Either that or you are merely feigning ignorance and being flat out dishonest.
> 
> Furthermore, we weren't terrorist attack free for 8 years after 9/11 however, thanks again for showing that you can't be honest. the shoe bomber, DC sniper, our embassies overseas were hit. SO please stop lying and at least try to be honest about it.
> 
> BTW care to explain HOW obama "relaxed" the patriot act?? Got anything REAL or are vague generalities all you have to offer?
> 
> Oh and in case you missed YOU made the satement about how it's OK to wiretap innocent people and that IF they are shown to be innocent, wonderful. I find it funny how people who are allegedly so supportive and defenseive of the constitution can trample it so easy.
> 
> So I will ask again and you will probably continue to rant in avoidance but are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Give us a major terrorist attack since 9/11 and since the Patriot Act was put into place.
> 
> Give us the American Citizen who has has his rights "trampled."  The only people the left have been able to give to me is Jose Padilla and Sami Al-Arian.  Which is a total laugh because they were both guilty as hell.
> 
> (And I hate to break it to some liberals.  Al-Arian is not an American Citizen)
> 
> Further it was the attitude of people on your side that kept the DC snipers free to kill and kill again, since the FBI, DC police etc, refused to do any racial profiling.  Despite witnesses who had seen "brown men" at the scene the "experts" insisted they were "angry white men" so John Mohmmed and Lee Malvo were free to kill again.
> 
> In a way they were doing racial profiling.  Because it's only okay to racial profile "angry white men" I guess.
> 
> 
> Bad choice to bring up the DC snipers.
Click to expand...


So you want me to give you something that you can't provide?? Where is your MAJOR terrorist attack under obama? Let's see your argument consists of a lone gunmen going on a shooting rampage and a guy who lit his junk on fire on a plane. That's hardly what any HONEST person would refer to as a MAJOR terrorist attack. 

Oh and nice spin about the DC snipers but who was president at that time and does your lame attempts to shift the blame change the fact that the shootings happened?? It doesn't. LOL

BTW I see that you ignored my question as predicted. LOL More avoidance and dishonesty from you. Imagine that. Are they innoncent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? 

In the end you lied about being terrorist attack free for 8 years so based on your own logic everything else that you have to say is questionable and therefore a lie. 

Sorry but according to your own logic and standards, you lose LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai is a FAIL in every way.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah......Teabagger Selling Lies does kinda spin stuff, don't he?


----------



## ABikerSailor

By the way dr.smith, guilty until proven innocent is how they ran the Salem Witch Trials.

It didn't work well......


----------



## JakeStarkey

Certainly not for the witches.

However, the Tea Party folks are old, white, well off, hateful about the socio-cultural changes they don't understand, which they tried and failed to stop in the 1960s, and they see again in the Obama presidency.

And, because the tide of history is against them, they will fail again and die off.


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ignorance is being presented by you. Either that or you are merely feigning ignorance and being flat out dishonest.
> 
> Furthermore, we weren't terrorist attack free for 8 years after 9/11 however, thanks again for showing that you can't be honest. the shoe bomber, DC sniper, our embassies overseas were hit. SO please stop lying and at least try to be honest about it.
> 
> BTW care to explain HOW obama "relaxed" the patriot act?? Got anything REAL or are vague generalities all you have to offer?
> 
> Oh and in case you missed YOU made the satement about how it's OK to wiretap innocent people and that IF they are shown to be innocent, wonderful. I find it funny how people who are allegedly so supportive and defenseive of the constitution can trample it so easy.
> 
> So I will ask again and you will probably continue to rant in avoidance but are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Give us a major terrorist attack since 9/11 and since the Patriot Act was put into place.
> 
> Give us the American Citizen who has has his rights "trampled."  The only people the left have been able to give to me is Jose Padilla and Sami Al-Arian.  Which is a total laugh because they were both guilty as hell.
> 
> (And I hate to break it to some liberals.  Al-Arian is not an American Citizen)
> 
> Further it was the attitude of people on your side that kept the DC snipers free to kill and kill again, since the FBI, DC police etc, refused to do any racial profiling.  Despite witnesses who had seen "brown men" at the scene the "experts" insisted they were "angry white men" so John Mohmmed and Lee Malvo were free to kill again.
> 
> In a way they were doing racial profiling.  Because it's only okay to racial profile "angry white men" I guess.
> 
> 
> Bad choice to bring up the DC snipers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want me to give you something that you can't provide?? Where is your MAJOR terrorist attack under obama? Let's see your argument consists of a lone gunmen going on a shooting rampage and a guy who lit his junk on fire on a plane. That's hardly what any HONEST person would refer to as a MAJOR terrorist attack.
> 
> Oh and nice spin about the DC snipers but who was president at that time and does your lame attempts to shift the blame change the fact that the shootings happened?? It doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I see that you ignored my question as predicted. LOL More avoidance and dishonesty from you. Imagine that. Are they innoncent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> In the end you lied about being terrorist attack free for 8 years so based on your own logic everything else that you have to say is questionable and therefore a lie.
> 
> Sorry but according to your own logic and standards, you lose LOL
Click to expand...


That's easy:


Fort Hood

The Recruiting Station

The Christmas Day bomber (it was foiled only because of a bomb malfunction.)


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL. Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen. Sheesh, you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A) Obamcare is REALITY. It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B) We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's better than nice he called you out on your BS. You rail against the healthcare bill based on your hypothetical beliefs concerning what you BELIEVE MIGHT happen in the FUTURE instead of reality which hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Do you get it yet or are you still trying to spin to CYA? LOL
> 
> Once again you show that you are NOT honest because IF you were honest you would admit that you are WRONG.
Click to expand...

 
Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.

Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you

AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

Here's a real interesting one:



> [SIZE=+2]*State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion*[/SIZE]


State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News



> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel
> *The chairman is denouncing businesses for complying with the law.*


 
Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com

And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.

Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL. Your logic is such that you cannot complain about Obamacare because it is still hypothetical on what will happen. Sheesh, you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A) Obamcare is REALITY. It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B) We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you truly don't think, do you? It is a hypothetical as to what will happen in the future with Obamacare. Thus you can't label it a failure. You are not very bright. If you are who the TP are trotting out, they will be slaughtered.
Click to expand...

 
A)  I'm not a son, I'm a woman.

B)  A signed law is NOT a hypothetical.  There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.

That is what we are objecting to.  You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.  

Sorry but that just isn't the case.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TPS, no one here is taking you seriously, because you are goofy in what you write and in your logic.

You are in the very small minority, pissed off at the changes of the last forty years, and now is your final chance to yell.  Go ahead, do not go gently into that dark night.


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Give us a major terrorist attack since 9/11 and since the Patriot Act was put into place.
> 
> Give us the American Citizen who has has his rights "trampled."  The only people the left have been able to give to me is Jose Padilla and Sami Al-Arian.  Which is a total laugh because they were both guilty as hell.
> 
> (And I hate to break it to some liberals.  Al-Arian is not an American Citizen)
> 
> Further it was the attitude of people on your side that kept the DC snipers free to kill and kill again, since the FBI, DC police etc, refused to do any racial profiling.  Despite witnesses who had seen "brown men" at the scene the "experts" insisted they were "angry white men" so John Mohmmed and Lee Malvo were free to kill again.
> 
> In a way they were doing racial profiling.  Because it's only okay to racial profile "angry white men" I guess.
> 
> 
> Bad choice to bring up the DC snipers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want me to give you something that you can't provide?? Where is your MAJOR terrorist attack under obama? Let's see your argument consists of a lone gunmen going on a shooting rampage and a guy who lit his junk on fire on a plane. That's hardly what any HONEST person would refer to as a MAJOR terrorist attack.
> 
> Oh and nice spin about the DC snipers but who was president at that time and does your lame attempts to shift the blame change the fact that the shootings happened?? It doesn't. LOL
> 
> BTW I see that you ignored my question as predicted. LOL More avoidance and dishonesty from you. Imagine that. Are they innoncent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> In the end you lied about being terrorist attack free for 8 years so based on your own logic everything else that you have to say is questionable and therefore a lie.
> 
> Sorry but according to your own logic and standards, you lose LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's easy:
> 
> 
> Fort Hood
> 
> The Recruiting Station
> 
> The Christmas Day bomber (it was foiled only because of a bomb malfunction.)
Click to expand...


If those are considered *MAJOR* terrorist attacks and I named 2 out of your 3, perhaps you should learn to READ, then so was the shoe bomber and the DC sniper as well as out embassies overseas that were attacked and therefore we were not terrorist attack free for 8 years. 

Thanks for the spin. LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A) Obamcare is REALITY. It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B) We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you truly don't think, do you? It is a hypothetical as to what will happen in the future with Obamacare. Thus you can't label it a failure. You are not very bright. If you are who the TP are trotting out, they will be slaughtered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A)  I'm not a son, I'm a woman.
> 
> B)  A signed law is NOT a hypothetical.  There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.
> 
> That is what we are objecting to.  You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...


So you are a female goofball.  That's OK, you should meet one of my sisters, who would give you a run for your money on goofiness.  No, you have offered nothing worthwhile.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A) doesn't matter WHO you think you were talking about you seem to be describing YOU. and the claim that you make in B is a perfect example of you being less than honest.
> 
> B) and NO you didn't prove (look up the word please) all of the photos were fake you showed that one was older claiming it was actualyl a liberal, which is unknown, and then claimed that all were fakes because the one was. Then you CLAIM with no proof to support that claim that the guy with the swastika on his sign who was STANDING ON THE STAGE WITH THE SIGN IN VIEW was a plant. That is NOT honest and it is NOT proof. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part.
> 
> You really need to look up the word "PROOF" so you can begin to understand that repetition of your OPINIONS doesn't prove anything.
> 
> BTW I am still waiting on you prove that the nutjubs that have appeared at tea parties since their mass parties began were plants. I keep hearing that claim and similar but have seen no evidence to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words facts don't matter to you, because you have your mind made up about me.
> 
> But it's laughable you talk about proof, since *YOUR SIDE HAS PROVIDED NO PROOF FOR THEIR PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Time to wake up from your little fantasy. Just because your side produces some photos does NOT mean we have to take them as legitimate.
> 
> Not only did I provide evidence one was fake (as it was 2003) someone else provided evidence Malkin was set up. The word is FAIL.
> 
> Every time I have provided photos of left wing protestors *I HAVE INCLUDED THE URL OF THE SOURCE!!!*
> 
> NO urls have been provided of those photos of supposed tea parties. Only assertions of what protests they are from.
> 
> The ONLY reason not to include a url is if one knows the site where those photos came from is suspect and even the left knows it.
> 
> *SORRY BUT IT'S A BIG FAIL FROM YOUR SIDE.*
> 
> This boils down to nothing more than what Dan Rather pulled with his fraud National Guard records for Bush. Rather was convinced it was true, so he didn't need to provide evidence to back them up.
> 
> That's all your side is saying here. That's why the rest of your lefty pals have run away from this thread. They know they are busted as trying to purport a fake. Too bad you haven't figured that out yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big text will help it sink into your brain that your side LOST and has already run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL increasing the font size isn't a valid way to substantiate your arguments.
> 
> You made the false claim that one photo being falsely represented shows that the others are false and that is dishonest of YOU. One has nothing to do with the others and for you to claim that it does, exposes you as dishonest. Based on your own logic that if one was false then all were false, then all of your claims are false.
> 
> BTW I see that you once again failed to provide proof of your claim that the guy with the swastika sign, that was on the left side of the stage with the sign being held up openly, was a plant. You also failed to prove that the nutjobs at previous tea party events were ALL plants.
> 
> The fact that you have a habit of avoiding FACTS that don't suit your spin leads me to believe that you know you don't have the proof or you would have provided it.
Click to expand...

 

No nice try.  But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT.

You are playing the Dan Rather tactic.  When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.  The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate.  If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.  

No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.  

I already did what I had to do.  Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect.  I need do no more.

The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.

Now rant and rave your way around that.  No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A) Obamcare is REALITY. It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B) We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's better than nice he called you out on your BS. You rail against the healthcare bill based on your hypothetical beliefs concerning what you BELIEVE MIGHT happen in the FUTURE instead of reality which hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Do you get it yet or are you still trying to spin to CYA? LOL
> 
> Once again you show that you are NOT honest because IF you were honest you would admit that you are WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.
> 
> Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill
> 
> Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> Here's a real interesting one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=+2]*State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion*[/SIZE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel
> *The chairman is denouncing businesses for complying with the law.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com
> 
> And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.
> 
> Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!
Click to expand...


Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured. 



> The telecommunications giant AT&T said on Friday that it* would take *a $1 billion noncash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and might cut benefits it offers.


 
and 



> US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it *expected to take *an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.



It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet. 


oh and this



> We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us



is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS. 

You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie. 

Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> TPS, no one here is taking you seriously, because you are goofy in what you write and in your logic.
> 
> You are in the very small minority, pissed off at the changes of the last forty years, and now is your final chance to yell. Go ahead, do not go gently into that dark night.


 
I know who isn't being taken seriously.

When you are reduced from even discussing the subject, and just attacking me, it's because you know deep down that's all you have LEFT.

You lost guys.  You got owned by a conservative and not only that a tea partier and a WOMAN.

Oh it must be humiliating and burn, but it was fun for me.

When you guys have evidence for those photos.

Evidence of American rights taken away by the Patriot Act.

Or how about Evidence that Fort Hood wasn't a major terrorist act, let me know.

Until then, it's pretty obvious, who failed.


----------



## teapartysamurai

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah......Teabagger Selling Lies does kinda spin stuff, don't he?


 
You should talk Rabbi ABiker!  

And I'm a woman.  You got yourself owned by a woman!

Deal with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Continue to dribble and drivel.  You are fun to watch run around like a hamster in a cage.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better than nice he called you out on your BS. You rail against the healthcare bill based on your hypothetical beliefs concerning what you BELIEVE MIGHT happen in the FUTURE instead of reality which hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Do you get it yet or are you still trying to spin to CYA? LOL
> 
> Once again you show that you are NOT honest because IF you were honest you would admit that you are WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.
> 
> Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill
> 
> Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> Here's a real interesting one:
> 
> 
> State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News
> 
> 
> 
> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com
> 
> And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.
> 
> Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it *expected to take *an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.
> 
> 
> oh and this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.
> 
> You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.
> 
> Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL
Click to expand...

 
No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.

That's not a hypothetical.  That's a reality.  No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.

And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy.  Companies losing money like that don't hire.

That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.

Keep sputtering liberals.  But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> NICE TRY!
> 
> A) Obamcare is REALITY. It's passed and signed into law.
> 
> B) We have WHAT'S IN THE BILL!
> 
> On both counts we see who failed and it's YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you truly don't think, do you? It is a hypothetical as to what will happen in the future with Obamacare. Thus you can't label it a failure. You are not very bright. If you are who the TP are trotting out, they will be slaughtered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A)  I'm not a son, I'm a woman.
> 
> B)  A signed law is NOT a hypothetical.  There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.
> 
> That is what we are objecting to.  You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...


No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal. 
So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to?? 

You said you could do it. So do it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> Continue to dribble and drivel. You are fun to watch run around like a hamster in a cage.


 
This is the saving face part of the debate kids.  

It's when liberals have exhausted every last bit of their tactics and they have all failed.  They go to the "well at least I'll get the last word!" tactic.

It's hilarious to watch.


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.
> 
> Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill
> 
> Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> Here's a real interesting one:
> 
> 
> State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News
> 
> 
> 
> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com
> 
> And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.
> 
> Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.
> 
> 
> oh and this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.
> 
> You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.
> 
> Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.
> 
> That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.
> 
> And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy. Companies losing money like that don't hire.
> 
> That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.
> 
> Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.
Click to expand...

 
And they'lll continue to mouth "Boooosh" for what they think Obama _had to do_ to stave off the evil capitalists that were only cooperating with the law...


----------



## Flopper

teapartysamurai said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Teabaggers will help the Republicans in the midterm elections because most independent voters and moderates just don't turn out for the midterms. It is usually the party faithfuls and the mad as hell crowd that show up at the polls. The presidential elections are different story. Rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat reload", "Join the conservative revolution", "Take to the streets and fight back" is not going to play well with the mainstream voters. For the Republicans to have a shot at the white house, they are going to have rein in the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats basically said, in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
> 
> I've seen this kind of thinking proved wrong more than once.
Click to expand...

No, Teabaggers are something new.  The party has not had to deal with a party within a party.  The teabagger agenda implies massive cuts in entitlement programs, anti-abortion legislation, an anti-gay rights stand, deemphasis of environmental laws, and relaxation of government controls on business.  There is no way that mainstream American is going to support this agenda.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you truly don't think, do you? It is a hypothetical as to what will happen in the future with Obamacare. Thus you can't label it a failure. You are not very bright. If you are who the TP are trotting out, they will be slaughtered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) I'm not a son, I'm a woman.
> 
> B) A signed law is NOT a hypothetical. There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.
> 
> That is what we are objecting to. You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal.
> So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to??
> 
> You said you could do it. So do it.
Click to expand...

 
I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals.  The law is already going to cost several companies millions.  So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.

Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> TPS, no one here is taking you seriously, because you are goofy in what you write and in your logic.
> 
> You are in the very small minority, pissed off at the changes of the last forty years, and now is your final chance to yell. Go ahead, do not go gently into that dark night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know who isn't being taken seriously.
> 
> When you are reduced from even discussing the subject, and just attacking me, it's because you know deep down that's all you have LEFT.
> 
> You lost guys.  You got owned by a conservative and not only that a tea partier and a WOMAN.
> 
> Oh it must be humiliating and burn, but it was fun for me.
> 
> When you guys have evidence for those photos.
> 
> Evidence of American rights taken away by the Patriot Act.
> 
> Or how about Evidence that Fort Hood wasn't a major terrorist act, let me know.
> 
> Until then, it's pretty obvious, who failed.
Click to expand...


Sweetie, quit whinging.  You attacked, you were corrected, and you are mad at me?

You have lost before you ever began this nonsense.  Watch this fall.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Flopper said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Teabaggers will help the Republicans in the midterm elections because most independent voters and moderates just don't turn out for the midterms. It is usually the party faithfuls and the mad as hell crowd that show up at the polls. The presidential elections are different story. Rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat reload", "Join the conservative revolution", "Take to the streets and fight back" is not going to play well with the mainstream voters. For the Republicans to have a shot at the white house, they are going to have rein in the far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats basically said, in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
> 
> I've seen this kind of thinking proved wrong more than once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Teabaggers are something new.  The party has not had to deal with a party within a party.  The teabagger agenda implies massive cuts in entitlement programs, anti-abortion legislation, an anti-gay rights stand, deemphasis of environmental laws, and relaxation of government controls on business.  There is no way that mainstream American is going to support this agenda.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is exactly what the small rightist fringe is about, and, yes, they have lost even before they have begun.  It is over for them: merely a corpse wiggling from the maggots.


----------



## teapartysamurai

The T said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.
> 
> 
> oh and this
> 
> 
> 
> is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.
> 
> You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.
> 
> Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is going to cost them.
> 
> That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.
> 
> And those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy. Companies losing money like that don't hire.
> 
> That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.
> 
> Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they'lll continue to mouth "Boooosh" for what they think Obama _had to do_ to stave off the evil capitalists that were only cooperating with the law...
Click to expand...

 
Which is pretty funny since Democrats were the ones that wanted such laws put in after Enron, and then they have a fit because companies obeyed the laws they demanded?

And then Waxman is so damn stupid, he doesn't even get that ATT&T et al., are OBEYING basically his laws.  

This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work.

Thank you dumbass Obama.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words facts don't matter to you, because you have your mind made up about me.
> 
> But it's laughable you talk about proof, since *YOUR SIDE HAS PROVIDED NO PROOF FOR THEIR PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Time to wake up from your little fantasy. Just because your side produces some photos does NOT mean we have to take them as legitimate.
> 
> Not only did I provide evidence one was fake (as it was 2003) someone else provided evidence Malkin was set up. The word is FAIL.
> 
> Every time I have provided photos of left wing protestors *I HAVE INCLUDED THE URL OF THE SOURCE!!!*
> 
> NO urls have been provided of those photos of supposed tea parties. Only assertions of what protests they are from.
> 
> The ONLY reason not to include a url is if one knows the site where those photos came from is suspect and even the left knows it.
> 
> *SORRY BUT IT'S A BIG FAIL FROM YOUR SIDE.*
> 
> This boils down to nothing more than what Dan Rather pulled with his fraud National Guard records for Bush. Rather was convinced it was true, so he didn't need to provide evidence to back them up.
> 
> That's all your side is saying here. That's why the rest of your lefty pals have run away from this thread. They know they are busted as trying to purport a fake. Too bad you haven't figured that out yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big text will help it sink into your brain that your side LOST and has already run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL increasing the font size isn't a valid way to substantiate your arguments.
> 
> You made the false claim that one photo being falsely represented shows that the others are false and that is dishonest of YOU. One has nothing to do with the others and for you to claim that it does, exposes you as dishonest. Based on your own logic that if one was false then all were false, then all of your claims are false.
> 
> BTW I see that you once again failed to provide proof of your claim that the guy with the swastika sign, that was on the left side of the stage with the sign being held up openly, was a plant. You also failed to prove that the nutjobs at previous tea party events were ALL plants.
> 
> The fact that you have a habit of avoiding FACTS that don't suit your spin leads me to believe that you know you don't have the proof or you would have provided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No nice try.  *But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT*.
> 
> You are playing the Dan Rather tactic.  When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.
> 
> THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.  The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate.  If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.
> 
> No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.
> 
> I already did what I had to do.  Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect.  I need do no more.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.
> 
> Now rant and rave your way around that.  No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.
Click to expand...


If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect. 

I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL 

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not?? 

You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey

This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now.  Folks know you are lying.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> TPS, no one here is taking you seriously, because you are goofy in what you write and in your logic.
> 
> You are in the very small minority, pissed off at the changes of the last forty years, and now is your final chance to yell. Go ahead, do not go gently into that dark night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know who isn't being taken seriously.
> 
> When you are reduced from even discussing the subject, and just attacking me, it's because you know deep down that's all you have LEFT.
> 
> You lost guys. You got owned by a conservative and not only that a tea partier and a WOMAN.
> 
> Oh it must be humiliating and burn, but it was fun for me.
> 
> When you guys have evidence for those photos.
> 
> Evidence of American rights taken away by the Patriot Act.
> 
> Or how about Evidence that Fort Hood wasn't a major terrorist act, let me know.
> 
> Until then, it's pretty obvious, who failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, quit whinging. You attacked, you were corrected, and you are mad at me?
> 
> You have lost before you ever began this nonsense. Watch this fall.
Click to expand...

 
Who came in attacking?????????? 

Typical liberal hypocrite:



> TeaPartySamurai clearly does not understand what the Lord taught in word and spirit.
> 
> I will leave it at the for you, fellow. Go to.
> 
> If there was ever a reason to question your sanity and ability, you gave it full credence. You are a loon.


 
I hadn't said anything to you.  YOU jumped in attacking ME!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2212305-post208.html

So who's whining?????????

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2212305-post208.html


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to AT&T what "might happen" in the future. They have already had to report charges from Obamacare, and when Henry Waxman tried to bully them into taking it back, Henry Waxman had to blink because AT&T were following the LAW.
> 
> Michelle Malkin Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill
> 
> Michelle Malkin Torquemada Waxman is still watching you
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> Here's a real interesting one:
> 
> 
> State estimates health care overhaul will cost Texas $27 billion | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News
> 
> 
> 
> Waxman Convenes the First Death Panel - WSJ.com
> 
> And that's just what is happening NOW. We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us, because the costs hit us now but a lot of the actual policy doesn't roll into until 2014.
> 
> Fail? I HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO TALK ABOUT THIS LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.
> 
> 
> oh and this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't even SEEN what this law is going to do to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.
> 
> You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.
> 
> Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is *going to cost them*.
> 
> That's not a hypothetical.  That's a reality.  No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.
> 
> And *those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy*.  Companies losing money like that don't hire.
> 
> That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.
> 
> Keep sputtering liberals.  But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.
Click to expand...


I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.

IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.  

you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL increasing the font size isn't a valid way to substantiate your arguments.
> 
> You made the false claim that one photo being falsely represented shows that the others are false and that is dishonest of YOU. One has nothing to do with the others and for you to claim that it does, exposes you as dishonest. Based on your own logic that if one was false then all were false, then all of your claims are false.
> 
> BTW I see that you once again failed to provide proof of your claim that the guy with the swastika sign, that was on the left side of the stage with the sign being held up openly, was a plant. You also failed to prove that the nutjobs at previous tea party events were ALL plants.
> 
> The fact that you have a habit of avoiding FACTS that don't suit your spin leads me to believe that you know you don't have the proof or you would have provided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nice try. *But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT*.
> 
> You are playing the Dan Rather tactic. When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.
> 
> THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate. If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.
> 
> No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.
> 
> I already did what I had to do. Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect. I need do no more.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.
> 
> Now rant and rave your way around that. No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.
> 
> I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL
> 
> As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??
> 
> You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL
Click to expand...

 
Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything.  You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.

(and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)  


I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.

I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.

The onus is on the person who posted them.

I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.

You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have not proved anything, TPS, thus you are irrelevant.

Your lying does not help your cause either.  But you are fun to watch wiggle like a worm on a hook.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.


 
By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?  

It's pretty obvious who is lying.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Continue to dribble and drivel. You are fun to watch run around like a hamster in a cage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the saving face part of the debate kids.
> 
> It's when liberals have exhausted every last bit of their tactics and they have all failed.  They go to the "well at least I'll get the last word!" tactic.
> 
> It's hilarious to watch.
Click to expand...


If by failed you mean that we have failed to get you to see reason and admit when you are wrong when proven wrong then that would be closer to the truth than anything that you have written. Other than that, this is you trying to demonize someone you disagree with as you try to "get the last word in" and that's all it is.


----------



## teapartysamurai

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not proved anything, TPS, thus you are irrelevant.
> 
> Your lying does not help your cause either. But you are fun to watch wiggle like a worm on a hook.


 
Yeah yeah yeah, I'm lying because you say so.

And I attacked first because you say so.

Just because I have evidence to disprove both is beside the point.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> A) I'm not a son, I'm a woman.
> 
> B) A signed law is NOT a hypothetical. There is actual language in the law tell ing us what will happen.
> 
> That is what we are objecting to. You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal.
> So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to??
> 
> You said you could do it. So do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals.  The law is already going to cost several companies millions.  So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.
> 
> Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.
Click to expand...


And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same. 

Oh and BTW you said and i quote



> You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.



So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed. 

Thanks for the spin.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice spin but in the end that's all it is. It appears that your articles talk about FUTURE plans based on estimates and estimates which have NOT yet occured.
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> It's called scare tactics and fear mongering they are trying to throw their weight around and demand changes to the law. Will they actually go through with it?? Who knows but it doesn't look like it has happened yet.
> 
> 
> oh and this
> 
> 
> 
> is an admission that you don't know and are still mkaing judgments based on your assumption based HYPOTHETICALS.
> 
> You in fact do debate hypotheticals. You lied so therefore everything you say is questionable and a lie.
> 
> Hey it's your own standard so it's only fair that it be applied to you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is *going to cost them*.
> 
> That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.
> 
> And *those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy*. Companies losing money like that don't hire.
> 
> That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.
> 
> Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.
> 
> IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.
> 
> Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.
> 
> you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.
Click to expand...

 
No you didn't:



> The telecommunications giant AT&T said on Friday that it would take a $1 billion noncash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and might cut benefits it offers.
> 
> The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, the AK Steel Corporation, Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Obama signed Tuesday would raise their expenses. On Friday, the 3M Company said it would take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.
> All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&Ts most recent quarterly profit. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.
> 
> AT&T said Friday that the charge reflected changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.
> 
> A White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.
> 
> Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits  including the subsidies  from their taxable income.
> 
> The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.
> AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offered because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.


 
AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com

They are required by law to report this.  It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.

That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money.  Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.

That's NOT a hypothetical.

And it's just starting.  Wait until we get to 2014.


----------



## drsmith1072

JakeStarkey said:


> This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now.  Folks know you are lying.



Exactly, he is making assumptions based on his own opinion based hypotheticals when he claims that he doesn't debate hypotheticals. LOL


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the signed law is NOT a hypocthetical but the future and not yet occuring effects that you continue to whine about ARE hypotheitcal.
> So what specifics are you pointing to? I have seen claims but nothing of substance about what is actually GOING to happen in the future concerning SPECIFICS within the law itself. So where are the examples of the ACTUAL (meaning quotes from the law paragraph and all) language that you are referring to??
> 
> You said you could do it. So do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals. The law is already going to cost several companies millions. So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.
> 
> Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.
> 
> Oh and BTW you said and i quote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to pretend it's just all good intentions with no actual language we can point to.
> 
> Sorry but that just isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.
> 
> Thanks for the spin.
Click to expand...

 
Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:



> WASHINGTON &#8212; US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.
> 
> Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.
> 
> "*Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted*," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.
> 
> *Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.*
> 
> "Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.


 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hI4qn-ML0rSDTCCl5kDuKAdHMQPQ

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> No nice try. *But if one photo is false THEN THEY ARE ALL SUSPECT*.
> 
> You are playing the Dan Rather tactic. When the Bush National Guard records were found to be frauds, he demanded people "prove" they are fake.
> 
> THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. The onus was on Dan Rather to provide evidence they were legitimate. If he could not do that, then they are suspect and not legitimate.
> 
> No court of law in the country would buy either your or Dan Rather's argument that *I* have to provide evidence for someone else's posted photos.
> 
> I already did what I had to do. Posted enough evidence to make it clear the photos are suspect. I need do no more.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted the photos to provide evidence of their legitimacy.
> 
> Now rant and rave your way around that. No matter how many internet tantrums you have, the reality of who needs to provide evidence, won't change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.
> 
> I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL
> 
> As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??
> 
> You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything.  You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.
> 
> (and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)
> 
> 
> I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.
> 
> I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted them.
> 
> I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.
> 
> You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.
Click to expand...


Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair. 

YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU. 
You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest. 

Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.

*As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not?? *

So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?
> 
> It's pretty obvious who is lying.
Click to expand...


I read them and supplied you with excerpts that counter your spin. 

So, yeah it's pretty obvious that YOU are lying. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it boils down to these companies ARE REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT AFTER ENRON, to report how much money Obamcare is *going to cost them*.
> 
> That's not a hypothetical. That's a reality. No matter how you want to spin it, you can't get around the fact that even Waxman had to back down from intimidating them on this fact.
> 
> And *those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy*. Companies losing money like that don't hire.
> 
> That's a direct result of Obamcare and only the first one.
> 
> Keep sputtering liberals. But I'll be laughing as I tick off each and every result as Obamcare kicks in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.
> 
> IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.
> 
> Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.
> 
> you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The telecommunications giant AT&T said on Friday that it would take a $1 billion noncash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and might cut benefits it offers.
> 
> The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, the AK Steel Corporation, Caterpillar, Deere & Company and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Obama signed Tuesday would raise their expenses. On Friday, the 3M Company said *it would take *a charge of $85 million to $90 million.
> All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&Ts most recent quarterly profit. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.
> 
> AT&T said Friday that the charge reflected changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.
> 
> A White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.
> 
> Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits  including the subsidies  from their taxable income.
> 
> The new law allows companies to deduct only the 72 percent they spent.
> AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offered because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> They are required by law to report this.  It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.
> 
> That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money.  Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.
> 
> That's NOT a hypothetical.
> 
> And it's just starting.  Wait until we get to 2014.
Click to expand...


In case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "it WOULD take" and it did take. 

one has happened the other hasn't. Do you know which is which?? Doesn't seem that you do. 

Again the article in question seems to be talking about things that haven't happened yet and it's hilarious that you went to the one article that i didn't cut an ecxcerpt from last time. I guess you realized how I shredded them and decided to avoid admitting that by avoiding the articles. LOL 



> those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy



that's a hypocthetical cut form your own thread. You lied therefore all of your post are suspect and lies, you lose AGAIN. LOL


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the case then ALL of your posts are suspect. It's your standard and i have pointed out how your posts are less than honest. Therefore they are all suspect.
> 
> I am not demanding that you prove they are fake so thanks for the strawman. I am just pointing out to you that your logic is flawed and just because one is fake it is NOT proof that all are fake. That is what you originally claimed and that is not HONEST and neither is rephrasing your argument to try and save face. You talk about honesty and the you fail to be honest yourself. LOL
> 
> As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??
> 
> You tried to dodge, you failed, you exposed your dishonesty AGAIN and therefore everything that you post is suspect. Thanks again. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything. You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.
> 
> (and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)
> 
> 
> I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.
> 
> I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted them.
> 
> I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.
> 
> You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.
> 
> YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
> You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.
> 
> Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.
> 
> *As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not?? *
> 
> So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?
Click to expand...

 
Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.

No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.

I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.

I'm already done that.

The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Because you can't prove a negative.

That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.

Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.

*I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)

The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.

He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.

If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.

Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.

Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This type of nonsense "This healthcare law has already cause millions in damage that is going to translate into even more people being out of work" is what is sinking you now. Folks know you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?
> 
> It's pretty obvious who is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read them and supplied you with excerpts that counter your spin.
> 
> So, yeah it's pretty obvious that YOU are lying. LOL
Click to expand...

 
Well you know I won the debate when that's all the left has left.

"you're lying!!!!!!"  

At least they didn't pull out the race card.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted a slew of links that prove they are NOT hypotheticals. The law is already going to cost several companies millions. So much so, Henry Waxman tried to demand they come up to Washington and explain themselves.
> 
> Waxman had to back down when someone explained to the pompous idiots these companies were only following the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.
> 
> Oh and BTW you said and i quote
> 
> 
> 
> So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.
> 
> Thanks for the spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.
> 
> Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.
> 
> "*Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted*," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.
> 
> *Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.*
> 
> "Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> This is the LAW. They have to do this.
> 
> It's already *going to *affect them. That's not a hypothetical.
> 
> Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.
> 
> And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?
> 
> Pretty obvious.
Click to expand...


Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL 

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out excerpts from your own articles that counter your spin. The things that your articles are talking about HAVEN'T HAPPENED YET. So once again you are basing your OPINIONS on hypoctheticals that may or may not happen.
> 
> IGNORING THE FACTS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.
> 
> Your own articles and you own post shows that no action has been taken YET so it nothing but HYPOTHETICAL on what might happen in the future. No jobs have been lost, no money spent it and YOU are all talking about things that MIGHT happen in the future.
> 
> you lied AGAIN therefore all of your posts are suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't:
> 
> 
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> They are required by law to report this. It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.
> 
> That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money. Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.
> 
> That's NOT a hypothetical.
> 
> And it's just starting. Wait until we get to 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "it WOULD take" and it did take.
> 
> one has happened the other hasn't. Do you know which is which?? Doesn't seem that you do.
> 
> Again the article in question seems to be talking about things that haven't happened yet and it's hilarious that you went to the one article that i didn't cut an ecxcerpt from last time. I guess you realized how I shredded them and decided to avoid admitting that by avoiding the articles. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's a hypocthetical cut form your own thread. You lied therefore all of your post are suspect and lies, you lose AGAIN. LOL
Click to expand...

 
You don't understand how businesses have to take these charges or report them.

Like I said, pretty obvious, you are still in school.

I understand.  You will be out there one day and have to work at one of these companies, then you will start to get it.


----------



## teapartysamurai

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And i ahve torn your assumptions that you based on those articles to shreds. They are talking about future events that have not yet happened and you are doing the same.
> 
> Oh and BTW you said and i quote
> 
> 
> 
> So I ask you for the "actual language" within the bill that you claim that you "can point to" and you avoid doing so which shows that you CAN'T do what you claimed.
> 
> Thanks for the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  US aerospace giant Boeing said Wednesday it expected to take an income-tax charge of about 150 million dollars in the 2010 first quarter as a result of sweeping health-care reform.
> 
> Boeing said that under the legislation, a final version of which was signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, it can no longer claim an income-tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under a federal subsidy.
> 
> "*Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income-tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted*," the Chicago-based company said in a statement.
> 
> *Boeing said the charge was expected to reduce net earnings by approximately 150 million dollars, or 20 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.*
> 
> "Cash impacts of this charge will be realized over many years beginning in 2013," the firm said, adding that it will update guidance issued on January 27 when it releases first-quarter financial results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> This is the LAW. They have to do this.
> 
> It's already *going to *affect them. That's not a hypothetical.
> 
> Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.
> 
> And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?
> 
> Pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL
> 
> LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL
Click to expand...

 
Still in school.

Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!  

Like I said, I don't have to provide the language.  Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:
> 
> 
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> This is the LAW. They have to do this.
> 
> It's already *going to *affect them. That's not a hypothetical.
> 
> Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.
> 
> And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?
> 
> Pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL
> 
> LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still in school.
> 
> Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!
> 
> Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.
Click to expand...

 
He hasn't read it or is a denier. I'd like to know which.


----------



## teapartysamurai

The T said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL
> 
> LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still in school.
> 
> Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!
> 
> Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hasn't read it or is a denier. I'd like to know which.
Click to expand...

 
I think it's pretty obvious he is still in school. That's why I tried to take the time to explain to him where he's wrong. (sigh).

But he is beginning to remind me of my 20 year old when she was 9 years old. Home from school for three days with a bad sore throat. The first day she goes back to school the temperature dips and we have a heavy snow. She comes home from school expecting to go play out in the snow.

Of course I said NO!  But you try reasoning with a nine year old, as to why she can't play in the snow, after being home three days from school.

Trying to explain to this guy, these actions by these businesses are a direct result of Obamacare and NOT a hypothetical--Just about as hopless and exasperating.

They both aren't interested in reason, just having their way. (sigh)


----------



## The T

teapartysamurai said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still in school.
> 
> Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!
> 
> Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He hasn't read it or is a denier. I'd like to know which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious he is still in school. That's why I tried to take the time to explain to him where he's wrong. (sigh).
> 
> But he is beginning to remind me of my 20 year old when she was 9 years old. Home from school for three days with a bad sore throat. The first day she goes back to school the temperature dips and we have a heavy snow. She comes home from school expecting to go play out in the snow.
> 
> Of course I said NO!  But you try reasoning with a nine year old, as to why she can't play in the snow, after being home three days from school.
> 
> Trying to explain to this guy, these actions by these businesses are a direct result of Obamacare and NOT a hypothetical--Just about as hopless and exasperating.
> 
> They both aren't interested in reason, just having their way. (sigh)
Click to expand...

 
Of course all they're interested in is their way or the highway...Damn the details or the reprocussions. (Even if it affects them too...the PARTY is of more import, -this- is quite evident).


----------



## edthecynic

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party. *If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.*
> 
> Discredited, fail!
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.
> 
> Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.
> 
> N-Word Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo  taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston
> 
> Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos.  *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!
> *
> *
> *
Click to expand...

And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!


----------



## The T

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.
> 
> Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.
> 
> N-Word Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo  taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston
> 
> Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
Click to expand...

 
Just like you passing off photoshopped images as genuine.

*YOU* are a FRAUD.


----------



## Qball

VaYank5150 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering.  AWESOME!
Click to expand...


Keep clapping as you read this site, Crash the Tea Party. 

Yeah, the idea that idiot liberals want to troll a protest rally to make them seem "crazier" is so farfetched. Except it's not.


----------



## oreo

teapartysamurai said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to my tea party in C. Spgs.CO today. We had a little over 2000 tea partiers there -and our very minut--tea party crashers--came from the high school across the street--which consisted of about 5 very young teenagers that really had no idea what they were doing--LOL. They left a little embarrassed.
> 
> *Anyway--the teapartycrasher.org--is an utter failure. In fact--I just tried to get back to their web-site and they have already closed it down.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of funny.  I wouldn't have been too hard on the kids.  They are naive and I'm sure they were led into it by their brain washing teachers.
> 
> Poor kids!
Click to expand...



No one was hard on them--but they didn't know that a 1000 camera's were onto them.  One carrying an obscene sign gladly posed for the camera's and that picture was sent onto the principle of the high school.  Needless to say--it's not going to be a good weekend for them--


----------



## JakeStarkey

This whole thing so reminds of the sixties when the far whinge was so sure things weren't going to change.  The same yelling, crying, and whining, but nothing will change back for them now. 

Most are old, white, well off, very unhappy with the socio-political direction of American culture the last forty years.  But, so what?  They will cry, then die of old age, then be forgotten.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I already proved these photos are NOT of the tea party. * If one is a lie, then the rest are suspect.*
> 
> Discredited, fail!
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.
> 
> Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.
> 
> N-Word Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader  The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo  taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston
> 
> *Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.*
Click to expand...




The T said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like you passing off photoshopped images as genuine.
> 
> *YOU* are a FRAUD.
Click to expand...

You can't face the truth.

If the photograph was photoshopped, why did Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society say Robertson was kicked out of the Houston event for the sign???????????? 

It must have said something even worse before it was "photoshopped" for him to have been kicked out. 

Further proof that when CON$ are caught lying they just keep on lying.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yep.


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In logic, for that to be true then the contrapositive must also be true, so if one is genuine then the rest might be valid.
> 
> Obviously your claim does not hold up because at least one is genuine and one is fake.
> 
> &#8216;N-Word&#8217; Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader The Washington Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo &#8212; taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston
> 
> Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!*
> 
> **
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
Click to expand...

 
*Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!* 

*That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*

But I don't know what that proves.

If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.

If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.

Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.

It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.

So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.

But I'm sure it makes sense to liberals snatching desperately at any straw trying to smear the tea party. 

Besides, he's not who started the Tea Party. Rick Santelli did:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA[/ame]



> O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC&#8217;s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution
> 
> Rick Santelli delivered his now famous &#8220;Shout Heard &#8216;Round the World&#8221;&#8212;his impromptu suggestion that America needs a Boston Tea Party redux&#8212;on February 19, 2009. As a full-fledged CNBC geek, I happened to be watching &#8220;Squawk Box&#8221; that morning, my alternative to &#8220;The View.&#8221; (Not to take anything away from Babs and her bevy, but when it comes to looks and smarts, nobody can top CNBC morning money-honeys Melissa Francis and Trish Regan.)
> 
> This was an electrifying moment for cable television&#8212;but especially for the mostly genteel and always arcane CNBC. Even to a drama junkie like me, Santelli&#8217;s rant was instantly recognizable as pure, unadulterated, off-the-charts emotion. I mean, this was CNBC, dude! These guys get worked up about the LIBOR rates and global decoupling. But Tea Parties?
> Here was a rare unscripted moment, a spontaneous economic _cri de coeur. _It didn&#8217;t hurt Santelli, whose straight-shooter affability is very infectious, that he had an army of like-minded traders behind him, with the modern-day equivalent of pitchforks&#8212;their BlackBerrys and iPhones&#8212;in hand ready to cheer on their modern day Paul Revere or Samuel Adams.


 
O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC&#8217;s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution - Big Journalism


----------



## edthecynic

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!*
> 
> *That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*
> 
> But I don't know what that proves.
> 
> If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.
> 
> If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.
> 
> Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.
> 
> It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.
> 
> So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.[/URL]
Click to expand...

First of all the link WAS there all along and people were laughing at your dumb act pretending it wasn't there.

And the fact that he got the boot proves several things. First that the photo was real. Second CON$ know they are lying when they claim he was a plant. Third CON$ know they are lying when they say the signs are photoshopped. And lastly CON$ will lie to cover up the facts after they are caught. Robertson, after the photo was published, did his own photoshop job on the photo to try to accuse Libs of photoshopping the photo. Of course, he was just obeying his programming as shown in the first quote in my sig.

Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign | TPMMuckraker





Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign

When you're a Tea Party activist and you've been caught holding a racist sign that refers to taxpayers as the "n" word, maybe it's better to just leave the whole subject alone.

Dale Robertson seems to disagree. Over the weekend, the Houston-based Tea Party leader posted a picture of himself at a rally last year that you can see opposite.

Notice something strange about the words on that sign Robertson is holding? That's because it's a (very poorly) photoshopped image.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Ed, Teabagger Selling Lies is doing a pretty good job of demonstrating that when cons are caught in a lie, they just pile more on.

She just keeps going.  Hey.....Teabagger Selling Lies.......what's your damage, you got GOP OCD or something?


----------



## teapartysamurai

edthecynic said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!*
> 
> *That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*
> 
> But I don't know what that proves.
> 
> If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.
> 
> If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.
> 
> Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.
> 
> It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.
> 
> So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.[/url]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all the link WAS there all along and people were laughing at your dumb act pretending it wasn't there.
> 
> And the fact that he got the boot proves several things. First that the photo was real. Second CON$ know they are lying when they claim he was a plant. Third CON$ know they are lying when they say the signs are photoshopped. And lastly CON$ will lie to cover up the facts after they are caught. Robertson, after the photo was published, did his own photoshop job on the photo to try to accuse Libs of photoshopping the photo. Of course, he was just obeying his programming as shown in the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign | TPMMuckraker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign
> 
> When you're a Tea Party activist and you've been caught holding a racist sign that refers to taxpayers as the "n" word, maybe it's better to just leave the whole subject alone.
> 
> Dale Robertson seems to disagree. Over the weekend, the Houston-based Tea Party leader posted a picture of himself at a rally last year that you can see opposite.
> 
> Notice something strange about the words on that sign Robertson is holding? That's because it's a (very poorly) photoshopped image.
Click to expand...

 
No, it proves he was asked to leave. 

You can desperately spin all you want, but it's no different than these guys:






Some LaRouchite cult members showed up with Obama-Hitler signs. Will the Left now be accused of bigotry, intolerance and hate crimes because someone who showed up at their rally put a Hitler mustache on the President? Signs point to "No." 
San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance







This was quite an interesting discussion, as a hyper-self-confident LaRouchite tried to explain to an Obama fan why the president needs to be impeached. I had a feeling that, at conversation's end, not many minds had been changed. 

San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance 

They showed up at an leftwing antiwar rally. Does that make the left all racists? Or the rally racist? 

And BTW, as far as my information goes, THEY WERE NOT ASKED TO LEAVE, as compared to what happened at the tea party.

Sorry but you can't spin your way out of this.

But keep on trying


----------



## Truthmatters

They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.

In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.

BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!


----------



## teapartysamurai

Truthmatters said:


> They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.
> 
> In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.
> 
> BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!


 
Sorry but evidence from this very thread (and given to us thanks to liberals) proves that's wrong.

The guy carrying the sign that said the N word on it, was told to leave, by the TEA Party.

Nice try but you need to read the thread and keep up.


----------



## ABikerSailor

teapartysamurai said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.
> 
> In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.
> 
> BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but evidence from this very thread (and given to us thanks to liberals) proves that's wrong.
> 
> The guy carrying the sign that said the N word on it, was told to leave, by the TEA Party.
> 
> Nice try but you need to read the thread and keep up.
Click to expand...


Thus sayeth the Teabagger Selling Lies with GOP OCD.


----------



## edthecynic

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!*
> 
> *That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*
> 
> But I don't know what that proves.
> 
> If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.
> 
> If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.
> 
> Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.
> 
> It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.
> 
> So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.[/url]
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the link WAS there all along and people were laughing at your dumb act pretending it wasn't there.
> 
> And the fact that he got the boot proves several things. First that the photo was real. Second CON$ know they are lying when they claim he was a plant. Third CON$ know they are lying when they say the signs are photoshopped. And lastly CON$ will lie to cover up the facts after they are caught. Robertson, after the photo was published, did his own photoshop job on the photo to try to accuse Libs of photoshopping the photo. Of course, he was just obeying his programming as shown in the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign | TPMMuckraker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign
> 
> When you're a Tea Party activist and you've been caught holding a racist sign that refers to taxpayers as the "n" word, maybe it's better to just leave the whole subject alone.
> 
> Dale Robertson seems to disagree. Over the weekend, the Houston-based Tea Party leader posted a picture of himself at a rally last year that you can see opposite.
> 
> Notice something strange about the words on that sign Robertson is holding? That's because it's a (very poorly) photoshopped image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves he was asked to leave.
> 
> You can desperately spin all you want, but it's no different than these guys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some LaRouchite cult members showed up with Obama-Hitler signs. Will the Left now be accused of bigotry, intolerance and hate crimes because someone who showed up at their rally put a Hitler mustache on the President? Signs point to "No."
> San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was quite an interesting discussion, as a hyper-self-confident LaRouchite tried to explain to an Obama fan why the president needs to be impeached. I had a feeling that, at conversation's end, not many minds had been changed.
> 
> San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance
> 
> They showed up at an leftwing antiwar rally. Does that make the left all racists? Or the rally racist?
> 
> And BTW, as far as my information goes, THEY WERE NOT ASKED TO LEAVE, as compared to what happened at the tea party.
> 
> Sorry but you can't spin your way out of this.
> 
> But keep on trying
Click to expand...

You are misinformed, as usual.

Like It or Not, LaRouche Cultists Are Aligning With Conservatives on Health Care  The Washington Independent

Like It or Not, LaRouche Cultists Are Aligning With Conservatives on Health Care

The LaRouche cultists oppose Obamas plan because they think hes trying to euthanize old people and the infirm. They oppose it for one of the reasons that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) oppose it, and theyre providing a lot of the research for this smear. Instead of grappling with this or rebutting the smear, McCormack smears Democrats, who have repeatedly purged these conspiracy theorists from their party.


----------



## rightwinger

My sources tell me that Sarah Palin is a poorly disguised infiltrator from the left






You betcha!


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but I don't don't have to prove anything. You are still desperately clinging to the Dan Rather ploy and it won't serve you anymore than it helped Rather.
> 
> (and Obama says the "bitter clingers" are on the right)
> 
> 
> I don't have to provide evidence for photos someone else posted.
> 
> I already proved one was suspect thus making them all suspect.
> 
> The onus is on the person who posted them.
> 
> I'm sorry you are so devoid in logic that you cannot understand this, but you cannot prove a negative.
> 
> You are only displaying your clear lack of understanding in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.
> 
> YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
> You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.
> 
> Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.
> 
> *As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not?? *
> 
> So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.
> 
> No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.
> 
> I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.
> 
> I'm already done that.
> 
> The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
> 
> Because you can't prove a negative.
> 
> That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.
> 
> Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.
> 
> *I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)
> 
> The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.
> 
> He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.
> 
> If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.
> 
> Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.
> 
> Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.
Click to expand...


Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks. 

The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty. 

The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake. 

Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when  earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact. 

So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate. 

Why is it so hard for you to keep up?


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> By all the urls I posted that you obviously didn't bother to read, because your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the facts?
> 
> It's pretty obvious who is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read them and supplied you with excerpts that counter your spin.
> 
> So, yeah it's pretty obvious that YOU are lying. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you know I won the debate when that's all the left has left.
> 
> "you're lying!!!!!!"
> 
> At least they didn't pull out the race card.
Click to expand...


Isn't that basically what you have been trying to do to me and others??? How many times have you called people liars in this thread?? Oh well, it must means that you know you lost the debate or else you wouldn't have called people liars. 

LOL once again your own logic counters your spin and shoots down your argument. LOL 

You FALSELY accuse me of not reading them AFTER I supplied excerpts from your own articles to counter your spin. So I point out the fact that you have been and are being dishonest and the best you ahve to offer is to claim you wan becuase i returned to you what you have been dishing out.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't:
> 
> 
> 
> AT and ampT Plans $1 Billion Charge for Health Care - NYTimes.com
> 
> They are required by law to report this. It's gong to cost them money or they will have to change benefits in new contract negotiations with the unions.
> 
> That means no matter how you slice it, it's going to cost money. Either in lost jobs or HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS for their employees.
> 
> That's NOT a hypothetical.
> 
> And it's just starting. Wait until we get to 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you missed it there is a HUGE difference between "it WOULD take" and it did take.
> 
> one has happened the other hasn't. Do you know which is which?? Doesn't seem that you do.
> 
> Again the article in question seems to be talking about things that haven't happened yet and it's hilarious that you went to the one article that i didn't cut an ecxcerpt from last time. I guess you realized how I shredded them and decided to avoid admitting that by avoiding the articles. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those costs are going to translate into lost jobs for this economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's a hypocthetical cut form your own thread. You lied therefore all of your post are suspect and lies, you lose AGAIN. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how businesses have to take these charges or report them.
> 
> Like I said, pretty obvious, you are still in school.
> 
> I understand.  You will be out there one day and have to work at one of these companies, then you will start to get it.
Click to expand...


Nice avoidance, that and your basless personal attack shows that you know that you have lost the debate.

Any debate that focuses in the future tense on an event that hasn't yet happened is debating a hypothetical which you claim that you don't do. However, based on your posts you do in fact debate hypotheticals. So my guess is that you only claimed that you don't debate hypotheticals to avoid a debate that you know that you were going to lose.


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:
> 
> 
> 
> AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law
> 
> This is the LAW. They have to do this.
> 
> It's already *going to *affect them. That's not a hypothetical.
> 
> Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.
> 
> And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?
> 
> Pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL
> 
> LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still in school.
> 
> Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!
> 
> Like I said, I don't have to provide the language.  Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.
Click to expand...


More avoidance from you. Thanks for proving that you can't do what you said you could do.

Oh and i am not defining the debate i am merely asking you to follow the same standards of proof that you presented in your earlier post. You made the claims and that you could do it so I asked you to and now you are running away. 

Actually what you provided were future events that may or may not happen as you try to CLAIM that they are caused by the "actual language" from the bill when you have yet to show proof of that connection let alone proof that these events will actually ever happen. BTW in case you missed it, that last part was YOU trying to define the debate and have it your way or else. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. *When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.*
> 
> *I call BS!*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!*
> 
> *That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*
> 
> But I don't know what that proves.
> 
> If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.
> 
> If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.
> 
> Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.
> 
> It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.
> 
> So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> But I'm sure it makes sense to liberals snatching desperately at any straw trying to smear the tea party.
> 
> Besides, he's not who started the Tea Party. Rick Santelli did:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA]YouTube - Rick Santelli and the "Rant of the Year"[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC&#8217;s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution
> 
> Rick Santelli delivered his now famous &#8220;Shout Heard &#8216;Round the World&#8221;&#8212;his impromptu suggestion that America needs a Boston Tea Party redux&#8212;on February 19, 2009. As a full-fledged CNBC geek, I happened to be watching &#8220;Squawk Box&#8221; that morning, my alternative to &#8220;The View.&#8221; (Not to take anything away from Babs and her bevy, but when it comes to looks and smarts, nobody can top CNBC morning money-honeys Melissa Francis and Trish Regan.)
> 
> This was an electrifying moment for cable television&#8212;but especially for the mostly genteel and always arcane CNBC. Even to a drama junkie like me, Santelli&#8217;s rant was instantly recognizable as pure, unadulterated, off-the-charts emotion. I mean, this was CNBC, dude! These guys get worked up about the LIBOR rates and global decoupling. But Tea Parties?
> Here was a rare unscripted moment, a spontaneous economic _cri de coeur. _It didn&#8217;t hurt Santelli, whose straight-shooter affability is very infectious, that he had an army of like-minded traders behind him, with the modern-day equivalent of pitchforks&#8212;their BlackBerrys and iPhones&#8212;in hand ready to cheer on their modern day Paul Revere or Samuel Adams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC&#8217;s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution - Big Journalism
Click to expand...



Once again you make claims not supported by fact.

The fact that he was removed for his distasteful sign does not prove that the tea party is not racist. It just proves that they did not like the sign. Of course the photo itself does not show that the party as a whole is racist but it does show that there is an element of racsim within the tea party. Which is what the disheonst among the tea partiers are refusing to admit to. 

Oh and BTW nice avoidance of the FACT that you tried to call him out and are now backing away from the fact that he provided a source despite your false claim. If you were as honest as you pretend to be then you would have admitted that you were WRONG.

So thanks again for exposing your dishonesty. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

teapartysamurai said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!*
> 
> *That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!*
> 
> But I don't know what that proves.
> 
> If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.
> 
> If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.
> 
> Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.
> 
> It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.
> 
> So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.[/url]
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the link WAS there all along and people were laughing at your dumb act pretending it wasn't there.
> 
> And the fact that he got the boot proves several things. First that the photo was real. Second CON$ know they are lying when they claim he was a plant. Third CON$ know they are lying when they say the signs are photoshopped. And lastly CON$ will lie to cover up the facts after they are caught. Robertson, after the photo was published, did his own photoshop job on the photo to try to accuse Libs of photoshopping the photo. Of course, he was just obeying his programming as shown in the first quote in my sig.
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign | TPMMuckraker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign
> 
> When you're a Tea Party activist and you've been caught holding a racist sign that refers to taxpayers as the "n" word, maybe it's better to just leave the whole subject alone.
> 
> Dale Robertson seems to disagree. Over the weekend, the Houston-based Tea Party leader posted a picture of himself at a rally last year that you can see opposite.
> 
> Notice something strange about the words on that sign Robertson is holding? That's because it's a (very poorly) photoshopped image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves he was asked to leave.
> 
> You can desperately spin all you want, but it's no different than these guys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some LaRouchite cult members showed up with Obama-Hitler signs. Will the Left now be accused of bigotry, intolerance and hate crimes because someone who showed up at their rally put a Hitler mustache on the President? Signs point to "No."
> San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was quite an interesting discussion, as a hyper-self-confident LaRouchite tried to explain to an Obama fan why the president needs to be impeached. I had a feeling that, at conversation's end, not many minds had been changed.
> 
> San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance
> 
> They showed up at an leftwing antiwar rally. Does that make the left all racists? Or the rally racist?
> 
> And BTW, as far as my information goes, THEY WERE NOT ASKED TO LEAVE, as compared to what happened at the tea party.
> 
> Sorry but you can't spin your way out of this.
> 
> But keep on trying
Click to expand...



WOW look at how she avoids the facts AGAIN. Then to try to cover for her avoidance she tries to change the subject. 

How typical.


----------



## Maple

Truthmatters said:


> They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.
> 
> In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.
> 
> BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!




Would you care to prove your statement with a link, please. I have seen NO racist signs at any of the tea party protests.


----------



## drsmith1072

Maple said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.
> 
> In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.
> 
> BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to prove your statement with a link, please. I have seen NO racist signs at any of the tea party protests.
Click to expand...


I am still waiting on righties to show how all of the nutjobs who have been filmed and photoed at tea party rallies since the beginning have all been plants. 

That seems to be the argument that the righties making and yet I haven't seen any proof to substantiate that claim. I wonder why??


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.
> 
> YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
> You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.
> 
> Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.
> 
> *As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not?? *
> 
> So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.
> 
> No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.
> 
> I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.
> 
> I'm already done that.
> 
> The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
> 
> Because you can't prove a negative.
> 
> That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.
> 
> Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.
> 
> *I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)
> 
> The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.
> 
> He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.
> 
> If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.
> 
> Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.
> 
> Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.
> 
> The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.
> 
> The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.
> 
> Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when  earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.
> 
> So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to keep up?
Click to expand...

Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.

Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.


----------



## Foxfyre

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's  chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:  



> Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  *In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  *The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> 
> *Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).  *



The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.
> 
> No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.
> 
> I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.
> 
> I'm already done that.
> 
> The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
> 
> Because you can't prove a negative.
> 
> That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.
> 
> Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.
> 
> *I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)
> 
> The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.
> 
> He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.
> 
> If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.
> 
> Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.
> 
> Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.
> 
> The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. *I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake*. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.
> 
> The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.
> 
> Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when  earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.
> 
> So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to keep up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.
> 
> Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.
Click to expand...


WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.

I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake. 

Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?


----------



## drsmith1072

Foxfyre said:


> I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's  chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?
> 
> This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.
> 
> But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.
> 
> His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.
> 
> His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  *In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  *The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> 
> *Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole article here:
> Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Click to expand...


WOW he wrote a paper while in college. Any proof that said proposal has been enacted or is this more of the standard scare tactics and fear mongering of the right??


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.
> 
> The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. *I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake*. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.
> 
> The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.
> 
> Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when  earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.
> 
> So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to keep up?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.
> 
> Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.
> 
> I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.
> 
> Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?
Click to expand...

 I understand well 

Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.

Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.

Do you comprehend?


----------



## Foxfyre

drsmith1072 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's  chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?
> 
> This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.
> 
> But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.
> 
> His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.
> 
> His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  *In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  *The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> 
> *Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole article here:
> Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW he wrote a paper while in college. Any proof that said proposal has been enacted or is this more of the standard scare tactics and fear mongering of the right??
Click to expand...


Perhaps you missed the part that this paper was written in 2008?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.
> 
> Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.
> 
> I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.
> 
> Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
Click to expand...


cmike, you pretend conservatives do exactly "pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up", thus you are merely projecting your own self image: you are deceitful, you  have been caught lying and make up things, then you want to blame everybody else.

You are


----------



## chanel

http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdSUuzkUnz

These young saboteurs should really stop smoking so much pot.  Interferes with their acting skills.  lol


----------



## Foxfyre

chanel said:


> Eyeblast.tv
> 
> These young saboteurs should really stop smoking so much pot.  Interferes with their acting skills.  lol


----------



## ABikerSailor

Are you sure it's pot and not something else?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's  chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?
> 
> This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.
> 
> But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.
> 
> His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.
> 
> His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  *In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  *The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> 
> *Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole article here:
> Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Click to expand...


You are indicating that government should not protect itself against false conspiracy theory groups.  Really?  In other words, the reactionary wingnuts want to say whatever they want and not be held accountable.  Not going to happen.


----------



## Foxfyre

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's  chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?
> 
> This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.
> 
> But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.
> 
> His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.
> 
> His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  *In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  *The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
> 
> *Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole article here:
> Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are indicating that government should not protect itself against false conspiracy theory groups.  Really?  In other words, the reactionary wingnuts want to say whatever they want and not be held accountable.  Not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could spend some time reflecting on how you came to that conclusion from what I posted and what you quoted.   Your observation has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted and what you quoted.

In formal debate vernacular, your conclusion is referred to as non sequitur.


----------



## CMike

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.
> 
> I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.
> 
> Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cmike, you pretend conservatives do exactly "pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up", thus you are merely projecting your own self image: you are deceitful, you  have been caught lying and make up things, then you want to blame everybody else.
> 
> You are
Click to expand...


Really? What photos did we make up?


----------



## CMike

ABikerSailor said:


> Are you sure it's pot and not something else?



You are the expert.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well **** Mike..........you're right, 8 years as a U.S. Navy Drug and Alcohol Program Adviser kinda means that I do know something about that.

You on the other hand, demonstrate DAILY that you don't know shit other than GOP talking points you pick up from FUCKED News and the Tea Bagger Party.

Shit......your head is so far up the GOP's ass that if they took a sudden turn your neck would snap.


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.
> 
> Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.
> 
> If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.
> 
> I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.
> 
> Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
Click to expand...


Oh as if you or your side are honest?? Furthermore there has been NO proof that "my side" has a pattern of dishonesty. That is you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION LOL
fact is that you chimed in and tried to attack me based on your misinterpretation of what was actually said. 
Now can you tell me, was it intentional dishonesty on your part or are you just too ignorant to understand what was written?

Since you claim that you understand then that leaves us with the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest and continue to make an argument based on a claim that was never made. 

I NEVER SAID HE HAD TO PROVE THE PHOTOS WERE FAKES. 
How hard is that for you to understand? 
Furthermore, you used the word assumption where as he stated that they were in fact fakes. 
There is a huge difference between admittedly making an assumption and trying to calim it's a fact that all are fake because one was when one has nothing to do with the other.

Do you comprehend?? 

P.S. based on the fact that you are being dishonest is it ok for me to assume that everything that you say is dishonest unless you can prove otherwise?? It's your standard so it's only fair to apply it to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CMike, DiamondDave, PatekPhillipe and others will present an assertion without evidence as a fact, then want someone to argue against it.  That boggles the rational mind.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

VaYank5150 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering.  AWESOME!
Click to expand...


Hey try doing a little research  Crash The Tea Party!


crash the tea party - Bing


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have seen some of the Tea Party groups try to make sure they present a clean act.  They did here at the courthouse square last Thursday.  The fact that the chief and the sherrif were on hand had nothing to do with it, I am sure.   Actually, I am sure it did not.  My very conservative neighbors here are great Americans, who are anti-big government and anti-excessive taxation.  I don't argue with that at all.

There is a right way to do it, and there is the way where and when all the nasty little groups -- the fear mongers, the birthers, the truthers, the racists, and the homophobes who try to climb on board.

Keep kicking them off, Tea Party, keep kicking them off, and you may have a chance of being interesting to a significant number of Americans who normally don't look your way because of the wierdos.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Tea Party Opponents Hope to Infiltrate Party, Dismantle It
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asshats are actually starting to believe your own fearmongering.  AWESOME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey try doing a little research  Crash The Tea Party!
> 
> 
> crash the tea party - Bing
Click to expand...

All those Op Chaos False Flag operative websites prove is how dishonest you CON$ervAlinskys are.


----------



## CMike

The problem with these liberals is that they are anti-American.

The biggest and most important right that Americans have is the right to free speech.

Yet, free speech, when it hurts their agenda must be destroyed.

This is what the bullshit to demonize the tea party is all about.

It's about the communism agenda of the liberals of trying to destroy the right to dissent.

That should tell us Americans how truely dangerous the progressive/liberal/Barak Hussein minion, crowd truely is.

They try to destroy our rights, when it interferes with their political agenda, unless we push back.


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.
> 
> I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.
> 
> Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh as if you or your side are honest?? Furthermore there has been NO proof that "my side" has a pattern of dishonesty. That is you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION LOL
> fact is that you chimed in and tried to attack me based on your misinterpretation of what was actually said.
> Now can you tell me, was it intentional dishonesty on your part or are you just too ignorant to understand what was written?
> 
> Since you claim that you understand then that leaves us with the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest and continue to make an argument based on a claim that was never made.
> 
> I NEVER SAID HE HAD TO PROVE THE PHOTOS WERE FAKES.
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> Furthermore, you used the word assumption where as he stated that they were in fact fakes.
> There is a huge difference between admittedly making an assumption and trying to calim it's a fact that all are fake because one was when one has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Do you comprehend??
> 
> P.S. based on the fact that you are being dishonest is it ok for me to assume that everything that you say is dishonest unless you can prove otherwise?? It's your standard so it's only fair to apply it to you.
Click to expand...

Ignoring most of your blabbering.

Your side lies. Your side fakes photos. Your side deceives, manipulates, and makes shit up.

Therefore, unless you can prove that your so called "evidence" is legitimate it is assumed to be the normal left wing made up crap that your side uses in order to score points, despite these methods being immoral and unethical.

Liberalism/progressivism=lies&deception


----------



## CMike

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike, DiamondDave, PatekPhillipe and others will present an assertion without evidence as a fact, then want someone to argue against it.  That boggles the rational mind.


What assertion?


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> The problem with these liberals is that they are anti-American.
> 
> The biggest and most important right that Americans have is the right to free speech.
> 
> Yet, free speech, when it hurts their agenda must be destroyed.
> 
> This is what the bullshit to demonize the tea party is all about.
> 
> It's about the communism agenda of the liberals of trying to destroy the right to dissent.
> 
> That should tell us Americans how truely dangerous the progressive/liberal/Barak Hussein minion, crowd truely is.
> 
> They try to destroy our rights, when it interferes with their political agenda, unless we push back.




Nice talking points propaganda. It looks like you are going to the fallback of conservative wackos which is "when all else fails and you are losing the debate call the lefties un-American." 
As if that would asctually substantiate anything that you have said in this thread. LOL 

I am still waiting on you to offer proof that ALL of thewackos that have shown up at tea party rallies since the obama administration began have ALL been plants.

You guys keep making that claim so I keep asking you for proof and your best response is to avoid the debate and call liberals un-American. 

BTW not that I am saying that anyone is trying to destroy the rightto dissent, but i have to ask where you stood when righties were trying to squash dissent back when W and the republicans were in charge?? 
I remember righties calling me an un-American unpatriotic surrendermonkey. So where were you when rightes were squashing dissent??


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh as if you or your side are honest?? Furthermore there has been NO proof that "my side" has a pattern of dishonesty. That is you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION LOL
> fact is that you chimed in and tried to attack me based on your misinterpretation of what was actually said.
> Now can you tell me, was it intentional dishonesty on your part or are you just too ignorant to understand what was written?
> 
> Since you claim that you understand then that leaves us with the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest and continue to make an argument based on a claim that was never made.
> 
> I NEVER SAID HE HAD TO PROVE THE PHOTOS WERE FAKES.
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> Furthermore, you used the word assumption where as he stated that they were in fact fakes.
> There is a huge difference between admittedly making an assumption and trying to calim it's a fact that all are fake because one was when one has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Do you comprehend??
> 
> P.S. based on the fact that you are being dishonest is it ok for me to assume that everything that you say is dishonest unless you can prove otherwise?? It's your standard so it's only fair to apply it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignoring most of your blabbering.
> 
> Your side lies. Your side fakes photos. Your side deceives, manipulates, and makes shit up.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove that your so called "evidence" is legitimate it is assumed to be the normal left wing made up crap that your side uses in order to score points, despite these methods being immoral and unethical.
> 
> Liberalism/progressivism=lies&deception
Click to expand...


OMG you really are retarded aren't you?? 

I NEVER SAID THE PHOTOS WERE REAL, FAKE OR OTHERWISE. How stupid are you that you can't get that through your thick skull?? 

Are you that dishonest that you have to continue to present this LIE or that ignorant that you don't know what I have said and are just here to rant about something that isn't real??


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh as if you or your side are honest?? Furthermore there has been NO proof that "my side" has a pattern of dishonesty. That is you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION LOL
> fact is that you chimed in and tried to attack me based on your misinterpretation of what was actually said.
> Now can you tell me, was it intentional dishonesty on your part or are you just too ignorant to understand what was written?
> 
> Since you claim that you understand then that leaves us with the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest and continue to make an argument based on a claim that was never made.
> 
> I NEVER SAID HE HAD TO PROVE THE PHOTOS WERE FAKES.
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> Furthermore, you used the word assumption where as he stated that they were in fact fakes.
> There is a huge difference between admittedly making an assumption and trying to calim it's a fact that all are fake because one was when one has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Do you comprehend??
> 
> P.S. based on the fact that you are being dishonest is it ok for me to assume that everything that you say is dishonest unless you can prove otherwise?? It's your standard so it's only fair to apply it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring most of your blabbering.
> 
> Your side lies. Your side fakes photos. Your side deceives, manipulates, and makes shit up.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove that your so called "evidence" is legitimate it is assumed to be the normal left wing made up crap that your side uses in order to score points, despite these methods being immoral and unethical.
> 
> Liberalism/progressivism=lies&deception
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG you really are retarded aren't you??
> 
> I NEVER SAID THE PHOTOS WERE REAL, FAKE OR OTHERWISE. How stupid are you that you can't get that through your thick skull??
> 
> Are you that dishonest that you have to continue to present this LIE or that ignorant that you don't know what I have said and are just here to rant about something that isn't real??
Click to expand...

Dr. Narcissism, I didn't say you said anything.

I am pointing out my view of liberals faking crap and that their stuff is tainted because it's known how deceptive that they are.


----------



## CMike

drsmith1072 said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with these liberals is that they are anti-American.
> 
> The biggest and most important right that Americans have is the right to free speech.
> 
> Yet, free speech, when it hurts their agenda must be destroyed.
> 
> This is what the bullshit to demonize the tea party is all about.
> 
> It's about the communism agenda of the liberals of trying to destroy the right to dissent.
> 
> That should tell us Americans how truely dangerous the progressive/liberal/Barak Hussein minion, crowd truely is.
> 
> They try to destroy our rights, when it interferes with their political agenda, unless we push back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking points propaganda. It looks like you are going to the fallback of conservative wackos which is "when all else fails and you are losing the debate call the lefties un-American."
> As if that would asctually substantiate anything that you have said in this thread. LOL
> 
> I am still waiting on you to offer proof that ALL of thewackos that have shown up at tea party rallies since the obama administration began have ALL been plants.
> 
> You guys keep making that claim so I keep asking you for proof and your best response is to avoid the debate and call liberals un-American.
> 
> BTW not that I am saying that anyone is trying to destroy the rightto dissent, but i have to ask where you stood when righties were trying to squash dissent back when W and the republicans were in charge??
> I remember righties calling me an un-American unpatriotic surrendermonkey. So where were you when rightes were squashing dissent??
Click to expand...

 I can call you anti american, I never said you didn't have right to protest.

Where are you lefties, when your code pink sluts heckle speakers and try to keep people from speaking?

Where are you lefties when jindhal's aide was beaten up, with her legs broken in multiple places, because of her politics?

Where are you lefties when any of the violence of the lefties is done?

I have never heard one lefty condemning them.


----------



## edthecynic

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand well
> 
> Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.
> 
> Do you comprehend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh as if you or your side are honest?? Furthermore there has been NO proof that "my side" has a pattern of dishonesty. That is you presenting an unsubstantiated OPINION LOL
> fact is that you chimed in and tried to attack me based on your misinterpretation of what was actually said.
> Now can you tell me, was it intentional dishonesty on your part or are you just too ignorant to understand what was written?
> 
> Since you claim that you understand then that leaves us with the fact that you are being intentionally dishonest and continue to make an argument based on a claim that was never made.
> 
> I NEVER SAID HE HAD TO PROVE THE PHOTOS WERE FAKES.
> How hard is that for you to understand?
> Furthermore, you used the word assumption where as he stated that they were in fact fakes.
> There is a huge difference between admittedly making an assumption and trying to calim it's a fact that all are fake because one was when one has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Do you comprehend??
> 
> P.S. based on the fact that you are being dishonest is it ok for me to assume that everything that you say is dishonest unless you can prove otherwise?? It's your standard so it's only fair to apply it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignoring most of your blabbering.
> 
> Your side lies. Your side fakes photos. Your side deceives, manipulates, and makes shit up.
> 
> Therefore, unless you can prove that your so called "evidence" is legitimate it is assumed to be the normal left wing made up crap that your side uses in order to score points, despite these methods being immoral and unethical.
> 
> Liberalism/progressivism=lies&deception
Click to expand...

Your side PROJECTS.

See the first quote in my sig.


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring most of your blabbering.
> 
> *Your* side lies. *Your* side fakes photos. *Your *side deceives, manipulates, and makes shit up.
> 
> Therefore, unless *you* can prove that *your *so called "evidence" is legitimate it is assumed to be the normal left wing made up crap that your side uses in order to score points, despite these methods being immoral and unethical.
> 
> Liberalism/progressivism=lies&deception
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG you really are retarded aren't you??
> 
> I NEVER SAID THE PHOTOS WERE REAL, FAKE OR OTHERWISE. How stupid are you that you can't get that through your thick skull??
> 
> Are you that dishonest that you have to continue to present this LIE or that ignorant that you don't know what I have said and are just here to rant about something that isn't real??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dr. Narcissism, I didn't say you said anything.
> 
> I am pointing out my view of liberals faking crap and that their stuff is tainted because it's known how deceptive that they are.
Click to expand...


*YOU* posted in direct response to *MY* posts as you intervened in a debate I was having wityh another poster, who has since cut and ran, where *you* pick up his argument where he left off by accusing me of something I never said and am not questioning as *YOU* consistently referred directly to *ME*. 

Sure as heck seems like *you* are directing *your* comments to me. 

*You *do know that *you* can post without responding to a specific poster don't *you*?? If *you *are so retarded that *you* don't know that then I am sorry for assuming that *you *were intelligent enough to know what *you* are doing on a message board.

Do *YOU* understand how *YOU *were directing *YOUR* comments at *me* and asking me to provide proof of a claim I never made??


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know, the tea baggers say that we are oppressed and that we need to "take our country back".

But...........considering that in today's day and age, a black man, a white woman, and a hispanic female can all go out to dinner, then go out dancing and drinking to ANY KIND OF MUSIC THEY WANT, and then, if they decide to, can all go home and have sex with each other.

Where's the oppression?


----------



## drsmith1072

CMike said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with these liberals is that they are anti-American.
> 
> The biggest and most important right that Americans have is the right to free speech.
> 
> Yet, free speech, when it hurts their agenda must be destroyed.
> 
> This is what the bullshit to demonize the tea party is all about.
> 
> It's about the communism agenda of the liberals of trying to destroy the right to dissent.
> 
> That should tell us Americans how truely dangerous the progressive/liberal/Barak Hussein minion, crowd truely is.
> 
> They try to destroy our rights, when it interferes with their political agenda, unless we push back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice talking points propaganda. It looks like you are going to the fallback of conservative wackos which is "when all else fails and you are losing the debate call the lefties un-American."
> As if that would asctually substantiate anything that you have said in this thread. LOL
> 
> I am still waiting on you to offer proof that ALL of thewackos that have shown up at tea party rallies since the obama administration began have ALL been plants.
> 
> You guys keep making that claim so I keep asking you for proof and your best response is to avoid the debate and call liberals un-American.
> 
> BTW not that I am saying that anyone is trying to destroy the rightto dissent, but i have to ask where you stood when righties were trying to squash dissent back when W and the republicans were in charge??
> I remember righties calling me an un-American unpatriotic surrendermonkey. So where were you when rightes were squashing dissent??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can call you anti american, I never said you didn't have right to protest.
> 
> Where are you lefties, when your code pink sluts heckle speakers and try to keep people from speaking?
> 
> Where are you lefties when jindhal's aide was beaten up, with her legs broken in multiple places, because of her politics?
> 
> Where are you lefties when any of the violence of the lefties is done?
> 
> I have never heard one lefty condemning them.
Click to expand...


Then it's obvious that you never listen and based on your own posts in this thread you continue that trend. 

I have already stated in this thread on multiple occasions that I believe that infultrated the tea party rallies is WRONG and have not defended that action. So once again you need to learn to read what is actually written instead of making moronic assumptions. 

Oh and still waiting on that proof that all of the wackos at teh tea party ralleis since the beginning were liberal plants. Why do you keep avoiding this debate??


----------

