# Why Do  The Liberals Fear The Tea Party Movement



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
I just don't understand.  Thoughts?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Oct 26, 2010)

"I am not a witch".  "Fortunately, Senators are not required to memorize the Constitution".  "Don't retreat.  Reload".  "I don't even know that you are Latinos, you could be Asians".


----------



## Oddball (Oct 26, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZKga-ZMMw[/ame]


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

I think they're afraid of the Tea Party because they know they (being Liberals) are NOT REALLY a majority and they see the awakening of a sleeping giant. and they be sceeeerd.

No worries, we are here, here we come.

vote vote vote people.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?




The TP is a faux grassroots campaign forged out of seeking a path to escaping the burning bushes.  Most of these groups/people were staunch supporters of the Cheney administration and now that some of the Liberal policy chickens are coming home to roost they need to find a new address.  Without really moving.  

More voters are realizing the national scene has left us hanging, literally.  The past four Presidential elections has forced all Americans to faux vote for a Liberal presidency.  The only choice was what kind of Liberalism would they choose.  One pandered to the crowd seeking social expansion while the other threw out fodder on preventing domestic expansion while both guaranteed foreign and domestic expansion of the federal government.  The only visible difference was which ones would be media focused.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't fear TP.  I use it to wipe my ass everyday.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

wow, how witty.

I don't fear TP, I use it to wipe my ass everyday.


----------



## JScott (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



They r un-murkin


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> wow, how witty.
> 
> I don't fear TP, I use it to wipe my ass everyday.



It was funny enough to leave you speechless and command a response.  Good job ignoring the actual purpose.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > wow, how witty.
> ...



 I didn't have a problem ignoring the "actual purpose".


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 26, 2010)

Historically, liberals have been the first victims when the shit hits the fan in a nation. They will come running to the conservatives for help from the angry unaligned horde, and we will help them.

Full time baby sitting job with liberals, ya know?

Ah well.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 26, 2010)

Oh boy, see this is what irks me.  You can take every post from every liberal here and you will never find the words "the tea party scares me" maybe in a "these ppl are dumb and scare me" kind if way but not actual fear.  That being said conservatives always make liberals about fearing something or being scared if something to project liberals as being namby pamby.

But no one fears the tea party.  If you are asking what problem liberals have with the tea party that's a completely different question that I am willing to answer.  Unless you're having just having fun.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

Why do I fear the TP gaining political power?

Because, collectively, and from what I've seen, individually, they are a bunch of FLAMING IDIOTS!

Seriuosly!

Let's see, they are for "Responsible Government", they don't like taxes, they want a balanced budget. 

Who the fuck do they think is against any of that?

Got news for 'em:

EVERYBODY wants responsible government, lower taxes and a balanced budget!

But there's this thing called "REALITY" and REALITY dictates that we HAVE to have taxation and we HAVE to run a federal deficit.

These are the same people of course that promoted the invasion of Iraq, but wanted lower taxes - and just don't get the contradiction! UNBELIEVABLE!!

What's more is reality dictates that no matter who gets elected there's gonna be some irresponsible government. I suppose they think that their witchy friend from Delaware is just TOO CUTE to be corrupt! How could a women with a body like Sarah Palin's not make a good President...sure....!

They want a balanced budget, but they want lower taxes! They have no idea of the federal budget or what the government does! If they have it their way we'll be a third world country in a year!

Did they notice that the economy has been in the tank ever since the Bush tax cuts went into effect? Did they notice that their free market policies destroyed our economy in 2007?

I wouldn't ever expect them to be intelligent enough to do a comparative analysis of the top tax rates against GDP growth for the past 100 years...they'd croak at the very thought of it's implications...but then again reality never phases them!

Basically, they've taken stupidity to the point of treason. If they have it their way, they will do to the United States what Yeltsin and Gorbachev did to the Soviet Union.

Fuck the TPs! They are every bit the ass-wipes that their nickname implies!


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 26, 2010)

Translation:

Ya, those stupid Tea Party people want to actually REFORM government, cut government spending, cut government ties to Wall Street, and give our kids a future.

I'm scared shit of good, honest, and wise people like that.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

Probably because Tea partiers call other Americans..especially the President, "foreign" and talk, with great glee about a new revolution. And they look forward to killing their brothers and sisters.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 26, 2010)

The Tea Party had a moment of innocence at its inception but was quickly swallowed up by the usual suspects on the far right.  That makes it something to worry about.

Vigilance!!


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 26, 2010)

NO TV for a week Sallow, off to bed.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 26, 2010)

yes, the mythical far right..............


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 26, 2010)

What do you liberals do for work? Government employees?

Simple question.


----------



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Tea Party had a moment of innocence at its inception but was quickly swallowed up by the usual suspects on the far right.  That makes it something to worry about.
> 
> *Vigilance*!!



This should be used with any administration, regardless of party.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 26, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> yes, the mythical far right..............



Well I'm not a sailor lol.

Or as Winston Churchill aptly described that profession, referencing the British Navy:

"Rum, buggery, and the lash."

You at least found a proper calling.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

```

```



Titanic Sailor said:


> Translation:
> 
> Ya, those stupid Tea Party people want to actually REFORM government, cut government spending, cut government ties to Wall Street, and give our kids a future.
> 
> I'm scared shit of good, honest, and wise people like that.



O.K, you want to "Reform" government? That line is as old as the hills! We already have the most scrutinized government in the world. Holy Shit! A President can't even get a blow job fron an intern without it causing a national crisis!

Cut government spending! Wow, that's what the conservatives have been saying forever! Do they ever do it? No!

What exactly do you want to cut? Everything that doesn't favor you personally? Do you understand that a democracy is a give and take form of governement? Everything is bargained for - and that's the way it's supposed to be.

What you're for is:
Increase spending for everything that favor YOU and the wealthy. Cut spending that favors the people that need it most. Reduce government workers to slaves, let our infrastructure crumble, do not supply our soldiers with training weaponry or armor. Let poor people dye on the streets.

Cut ties with Wall St.? Another good one! If you really want to cut ties with Wall St., you'll vote Democrat because Republican=Wall St.

And don't give me any B.S. about it - I grew up in Wall St.'s bedroom. My Father was a Wall St. exec., most of my high school classmate work on Wall St., as does my nephew.

I know Wall St. & the Manhatten financial crowd - they love Republicans and they HATE Democrats.

If you don't know that historically the Republican party has always been the Party of BIG BUSINESS and FINANCE, then you know nothing aboout American politics.

"Give our kids a future" - like investing in education? Curbing pollutatants? Dare I say - reducing global warming? Your entirely on the wrong side of the political spectrum on that one.

But wait, my mistake, by "Give our kids a future" did you mean, do everything to protect the trust fund babies from having to work for a living? Did you mean that working class kids should be obedient slaves thru their whole life so that the priviledged can continue being priviledge? Did you mean that they should be protected from the horrors of an economy based on competitive education - so that they can remain ignorant assholes living on their inheritances their whole lifes without need for education and not exposed to the competitive working world?

Oh, that what you meant by "Give our kids a future", you meant YOUR kids, not America's kids.


----------



## oreo (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



They're not the Federal government-- whom has promised them the party life of wealth redistribution.

"When government is big enough to give you everything you want--it is also big enough to take everything you have"--Thomas Jefferson


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



There is a mentality out there that is distrustful of any large group of people engaging in something not sanctioned (and taxed) by the government.  Remember that nancy pelosi's first reaction to the Tea Party was to suggest it was a plot by the GOP ("astro-turf").  She simply couldn't believe that people could spontaneously come together like that.
Once it became apparent that it was not astro turf, the libs went about trying to delegitimate it.  So the attributed the worst aspects of American history to a group of basically middle-class Americans.  They do not believe power resides in the people and so when reminded of that they must deny it any way they can.


----------



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm worried about the deficit, and have been for 10 years or better...I'm really worrying about it with Barry.  I think the Tea Party want to change that....they may not be able to, but at least they will give it a shot.  I'm worried about our dollar, and so is the Tea Party, if the globe ever goes off the dollar currency that certainly will have a ripple effect in the world.
I would like to see a party that is sincere about cutting out the porkbarrel spending.  So the libs can keep with the progressive social mantra....but in the end it will eventually be our downfall.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> O.K, you want to "Reform" government? That line is as old as the hills! We already have the most scrutinized government in the world. Holy Shit! A President can't even get a blow job fron an intern without it causing a national crisis!.



Yeah, every President should be able to get a casual BJ from an intern.




Heaven forbid Higher Standards.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



good grief, IT'S NOT THE FEDERAL GUBERMENTS JOB, to give our kids a future. it's up TO YOU to give your kid a FUTURE. and it shouldn't be on my back to have to WORK to give my monies by force through the FEDERAL GUBERMENT to take care of peope who WONT.

If I wanted to live in a Socialist country, I'd MOVE TO ONE. maybe a few of you should.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



Liars fear anything that is truthful. No one can argue and win against the truth


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...



Its clear from the above blithering ramble of moronically mixed metaphores why the Tea Party is feared:

It is too complicated for idiots to understand.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...



No need to comment I will just keep reading the comics from this post.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



If you could actually read, you would have noticed that it was a TP that stated that they wanted the Government to "give our kids a future".

But beside that, what are you saying? Close down the public school system?

By your wingnut standard, you've been living in a socialist country since you've been born - and you're more than welcome to leave.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

Samson said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > O.K, you want to "Reform" government? That line is as old as the hills! We already have the most scrutinized government in the world. Holy Shit! A President can't even get a blow job fron an intern without it causing a national crisis!.
> ...



Holy Shit! It's a national crisis when a President gets a BJ, but invading a country based on false premises and killing 600,000 innocents civilians is perfectly O.K.?

You have some fucking standards!

What are you, a satanist?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



LOL pin their asses to the wall and it doesn't take long for vulgarity and name calling.
and of course for the same ole standard Liberal talking points too.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



What are you, an idiot?

Who said invading a country, and killing anyone is perfectly OK?

Try to fucking focus, moron.


----------



## JamesMorrison (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



Meister, first, for the purpose of clarification, your term "liberal" I think we can safely assume, is used in the context of American progressivism/liberalism and not in its classical context. Classical liberalism (Wikipedia is a good source here) bears a strikingly familiar resemblance to American Conservatism, especially that of the American founding fathers, but no need to get too deep into the weeds here.

I have heard some people say that, as young children, we all start out as liberals. This is not meant as a slur to American Liberalism. As children we all are beholden, initially to those that rear us. In fact the success of parents, in large part, is measured in their ability to successfully wean their charges from the dependence they are accustomed to. Unfortunately, the older the individual becomes the more difficult it is for it to adjust to a state of independence. It becomes even worse when a central government assumes the role of parent and this type of relationship is continued, not only through the individual's life, but over several generations. The classical examples can be found in the U.S. and Europe by examining the American Welfare System and French society in general. The transitional difficulty is manifest in the French's unions' present difficulty in accepting a mere 2 year increase in the retirement age (something U.S. citizens accepted a number of years ago with little difficulty).

But we in America are fast approaching the French problem because of the power that has been afforded to the Unions representing government workers. There is a whole thread or two that might be devoted to this subject, but the point is that both government workers (state and federal) have become dependent on our government for very comfortable incomes, benefits, and retirement. These are all dependent on the largess of the politicians that run our government. Problem is it is not the wealth of the politicians that is being redistributed. It is that of taxpayers like you, me, and others like the Tea Party. There is now an effort by ordinary citizens like the Tea Party to rein in the spending. One can argue whether or not the T-Party is grassroots or Astroturf but that is a sideshow to what is actually happening in the country now which is simply citizens attempting to stand "athwart history yelling, STOP" the spending.

Conservatives/Tea Party types feel that the spending has us on the one way road to perdition. However, there is a problem with cutting spending, at least for Democrats and the left. The whole reason for being of the present Democratic Party is to obtain and keep political power. If not in power they cannot assure its patrons (NAACP, ACORN, SEIU, AFSCME, NEA, AFT...) that they will continue to receive the government largess that sustains them. If those depending on such government lose members and, more importantly, the revenue (from their union dues that are then contributed to the Dems) then the cycle is broken and the Dems' power slips away initiating a cascade effect of ever decreasing revenue and power.

So, what you have seen with the name calling, lying about, and generally nasty stuff has been drastic last minute scurrying around to discredit anyone that might interfere with the Dems cash cow cycle. At this point we should point out that there are many liberals out there that truly believe and keep the faith. These are the ones that us conservatives feel are worth trying to bring over to our side. However, all we can do is lead them to the fountain of information; they must be willing to partake voluntarily. But we should not kid ourselves that those dependent on the current government/Union/Democrat cycle are worth any such effort.

When you find people who call others names you probably have not found an open mind tolerant enough to listen to any argument whose conclusion might question their beliefs. They will say the same of us when our argument proves them wrong. However, what conservative needs an argument when we have the example of France?

JM


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> I'm worried about the deficit, and have been for 10 years or better...I'm really worrying about it with Barry.  I think the Tea Party want to change that....they may not be able to, but at least they will give it a shot.  I'm worried about our dollar, and so is the Tea Party, if the globe ever goes off the dollar currency that certainly will have a ripple effect in the world.
> I would like to see a party that is sincere about cutting out the porkbarrel spending.  So the libs can keep with the progressive social mantra....but in the end it will eventually be our downfall.



The problem is not the progressive social programs - most of those, if not all, are only inacted in order to adjust our soceity to the needs of an ever growing, ever more complex soceity. WE ARE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE! (unless you are in fact in Kansas, then please disregard).

The problem is that the obsession with capitalism has caused a totally unbalanced - and unfair - distribution of the wealth. This in turn creates the need for social programs.
(Not that all progressive programs are "social" programs).

If we look at history, we find that the greatest growth in GDP was when there was the highest tax rate on the wealthy. There was also the greatest increases in wealth of the working class. This is how to fix our economy and the federal deficit.

Reverting us back to a form of government that hasn't worked since agrarian times, is not going to fix anything. It's just going to cause a cataclysmic humanitarian crisis - and the end of the U.S. as a super-power.

Unfortunately, it seems that only a massive humanitarian crisis will ever wake up the people and the government of the U.S. to do what's really needed. So far the Democrats don't have the balls. But they're wishy washy approach is still a better alternative to the disaster that will occur if the TPs have their way.

Of course, I suspect that if the TPS ever get into power, they will change NOTHING. But they will declare that they have changed everything and everything is different - just because they won.

And besides - they won't have the TP idots on their backs.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 26, 2010)

Samson said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Support for it is a good indication


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> NO TV for a week Sallow, off to bed.



That's just plain mean man.

No Simpsons? For a whole week?


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2010)

The Republican Party is much more afraid of the Tea Party than the Democrats.  They are taking the Republican Party right over the edge.  From religious extreme to bizarre wacko.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

rdean said:


> The Republican Party is much more afraid of the Tea Party than the Democrats.  They are taking the Republican Party right over the edge.  From religious extreme to bizarre wacko.




I agree with the first two points.

as to "From religious extreme to bizarre wacko," you could make that your siggy.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

JamesMorrison said:


> But we in America are fast approaching the French problem because of the power that has been afforded to the Unions representing government workers.



That's a fallacy. The French have a retirement age of 60, paternity and maternity leave, a full month for baby care after the birth of a child, a full month vacation when you start employment, strictly enforced 35 hour work weeks, employer provided child care, and a host of other benefits for their average workers. I know this because we recently merged with a French company.

My own work week ranges between 40 and 70 hours. I work 6 days a week..most weeks of the year. After 13 years I get a 4 week vacation (it started at 1 week) that I must schedule a year in advance and 3 personal days. That's along with 5 sick days.

I don't think I am atypical.


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

JamesMorrison said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...



It is abundantly clear that you have no respect whatsoever for working people. A an arrogant distain for working people who stand up for themselves.

It is also clear that you like to play the "French card", oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong. In fact, the French are our greatest allies historically, espouse political values closest to the values of the American founding fathers- in some ways more so than Americans. After all wasn't it Thomas Paine that authored the French "Rights of Man"?

In fact you are entirely ignorant (or shall we say, just plain full oof shit?), when you compare the American Conservatives to the founding fathers. NOT!

The current American Conservative movement (as it has for the past 50 years), represents the philosohy and interests of the British Conservatives and Europe Royalty.

This is especially evident in the anti-government, pro-wealthy sentiment of the the American Conservative movement. Since the inception of modern governement, the Europen Royalty had yearned for and worked for the destruction of these governements, so that they can resume absolute totalitarian power - especially that of absolute economic control.

While you accuse the Democrats of existing for a tiny group of patrons, each and everyone of these patrons represents the interest of common Americans. It is also true that the Democrats have supported the interests of the vast majority of Americans - through labor laws, Union support, Social Security, Medicare, industrial regulation, consumer protections. etc...

In fact, the Democrats have been the party "by the people and for the people".

But, I'm sure that you have issue with that very concept.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 26, 2010)

ClosedCaption said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Do you really want to go there? Who supported what?


----------



## Richard-H (Oct 26, 2010)

I hope that none of you wingnuts misconstrue my not continuing this discussion as not being capable of responding. I fact, it's time for me to go to bed.

I WORK FOR A LIVING!


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

LOL, the Democrats USED to be the party for the people. 

They STOPPED being that 50 or so years ago. 

Now they are the Party of the Unions, Acorn, the Black Panthers, the Rev. Wrights of our country and the Eleitiest Democrats in POWER now.

People who are Democrats better wake up soon and SEE THIS.

They don't have your interest at heart, if they did, the Obama wouldn't be pushing for Amnesty for 20 to 30 million Illegal Immigrants with the American citizens at this time seeing over 15% unemployment.

wake up people


----------



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Actually we should hold our presidents to a higher standard don't you think, than that of a "john" getting a cheap thrill.  600,000?  In a pigs eye, that was proven to be way over blown.
But, you just keep drinking that orange Kool-Aid of yours, and listen to your talking points from the libs...it makes for a good message board.


----------



## Londoner (Oct 26, 2010)

Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".

The Tea Party is a poor copy of Germany's völkisch movement, which was based on nativist bigotry, e.g., "we are real Americans, _they_ are not.   *They* must be stopped". 

(Violent "homelander" movements are typically wrapped in messianic delusion, e.g., "we are the chosen people, doing God's work - fighting evil")

If the economy gets worse and America gets attacked again and the Tea Party gets a charismatic leader, people are going to wake up in a much different country. 

History always repeats itself. God Help Us.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhjg2W7vlMc[/ame]


----------



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

Londoner said:


> Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".
> 
> The Tea Party is a poor copy of Germany's völkisch movement, which was based on nativist bigotry, e.g., "we are real Americans, _they_ are not.   *They* must be stopped".
> 
> ...



You equate the Tea Party to violence?  That's a stretch, a lot more violence in France with raising the retirement age to 62 don't you think?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Londoner said:


> Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".
> 
> The Tea Party is a poor copy of Germany's völkisch movement, which was based on nativist bigotry, e.g., "we are real Americans, _they_ are not.   *They* must be stopped".
> 
> ...



oh brother.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

Meister said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".
> ...



What's the matter? 


_You one of THEM!!!_







How fuckin' absurd.


----------



## Londoner (Oct 26, 2010)

Fair. 

Clarification.

I don't think they are violent for the sake of violence. I think many are good hearted people who are in a state of raw fear (which fear could eventually be triggered by economic desperation and another attack).

I think they are violent in the face of _what they deeply believe is_ an evil opposition.

Once you convince good people that something is evil, their capacity for violence goes up. 

Once you convince good people that African Americans are taxonomically closer to animals than humans, you create the conditions for slavery.

Once you convince good people that Jews are evil, you create the conditions for the holocaust. 

The Tea Party sees an evil opposition.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

Londoner said:


> The Tea Party sees an evil opposition.



Who?


----------



## Meister (Oct 26, 2010)

Londoner said:


> Fair.
> 
> Clarification.
> 
> ...



You've been listening and watching too much left leaning MSM.  You don't have a clue what the real Tea Party is about Londoner.


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



Not one of them.  But, I do understand them and their frustrations.


----------



## Londoner (Oct 27, 2010)

Meister said:


> You've been listening and watching too much left leaning MSM.  You don't have a clue what the real Tea Party is about Londoner.



You might be correct that I don't understand the Tea Party. FYI: I'm "ok" with small government libertarianism; in fact, I think it should be a part of the national dialogue. *I have a dog-eared copy of "The Road to Serfdom" in my library.*

I'm commenting on the notion of revanchism within the Republican party, i.e., the notion that the country has been co-opted by a shadowy evil force (e.g., communism, liberalism, feminism, atheism, black panthers, baby killers, illegals, gays, sin, porn, drugs, etc., etc . . . the full pantheon of never-ending politically exploited demons who are stealing the Real America..."borders, language, culture"). This strain runs from McCarthy's black lists to Nixon's "Liberal Jewish Media" to Bush's "evil doers", culminating in the Tea Party's extreme anti-liberal, anti-government hysteria. The central theme is that the same old evil contagion has reached Washington and stolen the country. Don't they get it? There is no government. Big Business owns and staffs government. Washington didn't fall to socialists. It fell to monopolists, or do you think lobbyists don't want a return on their investment?

*Socialism? Not even close; we have the opposite: big business has paid Washington to disenfranchise workers and ship jobs overseas = lower labor costs.

Will someone explain to the Tea Party that the workers don't own the modes of production. To the contrary, wages and benefits have fallen off the face of the earth because government has been purchased by the "owners"*.

Regardless, The Tea Party feels/looks/smells like the same old machine politics using the same old culture war to agitate the serfs into voting against their economic interests (old, old, old)

In 2012, when the GOP takes Washington back, the Tea Party will be distracted with color coded "terrorism" (again) -- AND AGAIN we will see the same old messianic, us/them, "war for civilization" which politicians use to move the budget in preferred directions.

old old old

yawn


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2010)

Londoner said:


> Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".
> 
> The Tea Party is a poor copy of Germany's völkisch movement, which was based on nativist bigotry, e.g., "we are real Americans, _they_ are not.   *They* must be stopped".
> 
> ...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhjg2W7vlMc[/ame]
You do realize your video is a joke.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FM_ezyIcAU&feature=grec_index[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Oct 27, 2010)

Londoner said:


> Fair.
> 
> Clarification.
> 
> ...



The only 'fear' you'll notice within the tea parties is regarding politicians of both parties. Fear would be the wrong word, insert contempt. Contempt at their arrogance, wastefulness, and condescension. Fear? The only fear here is not about Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, nope, it's coming from the politicians on just how long the people will keep up this kind of scrutiny and action.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2010)

Sallow said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> > But we in America are fast approaching the French problem because of the power that has been afforded to the Unions representing government workers.
> ...



Actually you proved his statement correct.
The French just this week passed an increase in the retirement age (from 60 to 62) because their gov't is essentially bankrupt, with high debt, stagnant GDP, and high structural joblessness.
People think gov't mandates on business are free.  This is exactly the problem.  This is what the Tea Party is railing against.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...




TP was not formed out of a vision of unity but mainly as a response to obushama's election.  This was not a spontaneously ignited group of local gone mogul and without funding by key groups and heavy promotion by mouthpieces such as Fox this thread wouldn't exist.

The Guardian

The billionaire Koch brothers&#8217; war against Obama : The New Yorker

Im kinda hoping the info in those links are ignored because if they get addressed it will completely shatter my ego on being able to predict how certain camps ignore info they cannot reconcile.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



well certainly if the GAURDIAN and the NEW YORKER says it's true, than it damn sure must be..


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 27, 2010)

so when Obama gave at least 80 billion to big pharmaceutical and hundreds of billions to the insurance industry with the rip-off Obamacare, and TARP, he wasn't catering to Wall Street. If Bush tried all of that , you'd have an aneurysm. 

Actually, looks like you already are.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I know.  Your first clue should have been when I said:

Good job on ignoring the actual purpose of the post.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Feigned esotericism is the proud proclamation of ignorance.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 27, 2010)

Meister said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Because the logic of the Tea Party -- i.e., "our country has been stolen by an evil force" -- leads to violence, e.g., "we are morally obligated to stop the evil force which has stolen our country".
> ...



Yep. Tons of burning cars.

And kids getting hit by rubber bullets shot by police.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 27, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> LOL, the Democrats USED to be the party for the people.
> 
> They STOPPED being that 50 or so years ago.
> 
> ...



Unions aren't the people? Um..okay.

There's a bridge in brooklyn I would like to sell ya. Cheap.


----------



## Samson (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your idiotic babbling isn't feigned.

Its just a little pitiful.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Here's your chance to shine.  Using your own words, explain the TPM.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2010)

The tea party is nothing more than a pep rally, a bunch of people who will sit in the stands, watch what happens and never understand the game.
The tp mentality in a nutshell (kind of poetic, given Meister and Stephanie are t baggers) is simple solutions to complex problems.
There is no critical thinking associated with the tp; it is an emotional reaction, more hysterical than rational.
The leaders of the tp movement are getting rich making speeches, the substance of which is, "hooray for our side", using code and pejoratives to attack current officials.
The foundation of the tp is greed and racism.


----------



## Samson (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Throwing Pearls to Pigs?......nah, I have a life.

But, just to be charitable to the mentally challenged, I'll put a dime in your cup...

Tea Party Patriots | Mission Statement and Core Values

It's called the "Internet"


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



As noted:  Free Markets (code for unregulated commerce), let the buyer beware;
Constitutionally Limited Government (code for a return to Jim Crow laws and overturning the voters rights act and the civil rights act); Fiscal Responsibility (a populist promise without a shread of substance; code for the effort to eliminate Social Security and Medicare).


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2010)

Hey sammie boy, did you miss my response?  I await your usual glib comment and ad hominem attack.

Once again, the tea party is a shame, it is nothing short of a Reactionary Movement using populist rhetoric, as noted, "Free Markets (code for unregulated commerce), let the buyer beware;
Constitutionally Limited Government (code for a return to Jim Crow laws and overturning the voters rights act and the civil rights act); Fiscal Responsibility (a populist promise without a shread of substance; code for the effort to eliminate Social Security and Medicare)".


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



I said "using your own words" because I knew you would not be able to do it.  The addiional humor is demonstrating you are fucking clueless about the pearls/swine allegory.


----------



## Samson (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



As I suspected, I raised the bar to high for you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Well sammie boy, it's nice to know you've chosen to ignore my posts; confirmation you're a cyberbully (hint, it works for children but you're no longer a child sammie boy, notwithstanding your behavior).


----------



## topspin (Oct 27, 2010)

because they know we are spending too much, and if the tea party can take out some established republican spenders then they can open a can of whuppass on current dems spendatrons.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



The erudite explanation of the TPM in your own magnificent words will leave Greek Scholars amazed and question if it is not proof of reincarnation.


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> The tea party is nothing more than a pep rally, a bunch of people who will sit in the stands, watch what happens and never understand the game.
> The tp mentality in a nutshell (kind of poetic, given Meister and Stephanie are t baggers) is simple solutions to complex problems.
> There is no critical thinking associated with the tp; it is an emotional reaction, more hysterical than rational.
> The leaders of the tp movement are getting rich making speeches, the substance of which is, "hooray for our side", using code and pejoratives to attack current officials.
> The foundation of the tp is greed and racism.



As seen from the back deck of a condo in frisco from an ultra liberal wackjob.  Yes, that is how you see it, wry, no doubt.  
PS...I'm not a tea party member, nor have I been to a Tea Party event, but your delusional drug induced mind, I'm sure I am, along with most people who are concerned with the direction this country is going are all card carrying Tea Party Members. 

Your a fool's tool, wry, and most on this board know that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Meister said:


> What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> I just don't understand.  Thoughts?



Because they have no real, workable solutions. They've managed to grab the attention of the least enlightened and give them hope that they can have it all and still not pay for anything. The Tea Party has a list of wants, period. (But don't we all.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> I think they're afraid of the Tea Party because they know they (being Liberals) are NOT REALLY a majority and they see the awakening of a sleeping giant. and they be sceeeerd.
> 
> No worries, we are here, here we come.
> 
> vote vote vote people.



The attitude of many like you is likened to a child who asked for and gets a brand-new convertible for her birthday but doesn't know how to drive yet. Once you have it, what are you going to do with it?


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> Historically, liberals have been the first victims when the shit hits the fan in a nation. They will come running to the conservatives for help from the angry unaligned horde, and we will help them.
> 
> Full time baby sitting job with liberals, ya know?
> 
> Ah well.



Help? What kind of "help" would you be talking about? The only reason the right gets back into power is that they manage to have the loudest voices and are able to better sway the masses. Unfortunately, when those same masses wake up to the fact that the right doesn't "help" them at all, and in fact, ALWAYS works against them, the Dems are put right back in power.

And round and round we go.


----------



## Samson (Oct 27, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Historically, liberals have been the first victims when the shit hits the fan in a nation. They will come running to the conservatives for help from the angry unaligned horde, and we will help them.
> ...



Yeah, it couldn't possibly be over spending on underperforming social engineering programs that make the left unpopular.


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...



Maggie, they can't do any worse than what's been going on over the last ten years....yes, I said 10 years.  Somebody somewhere needs to step up and change the direction, it isn't with the democrats, nor is it with the established republicans. This is good for America IMHO.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> Why do I fear the TP gaining political power?
> 
> Because, collectively, and from what I've seen, individually, they are a bunch of FLAMING IDIOTS!
> 
> ...



  Too bad Obama can't work some of that into his own speeches. It's the kind of simple truth that people get.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> Translation:
> 
> Ya, those stupid Tea Party people want to actually REFORM government, cut government spending, cut government ties to Wall Street, and give our kids a future.
> 
> I'm scared shit of good, honest, and wise people like that.



They can do that, but for God's sake, they could have found more people with some decent credentials.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> What do you liberals do for work? Government employees?
> 
> Simple question.



No, it's a stupid question.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



Careful Richard, if you continue on like this, you'll soon be accused of being "jealous" of the rich. That's usually the send off on the topic, as they slowly back out of a thread where honesty is spoken.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

oreo said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about the Tea Party? I hear faux racism...I hear faux discrimination.
> ...



Know thy history. A couple of excerpts from this:

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years | CommonDreams.org



> Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
> 
> *Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."*
> 
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The Tea Party complicated? Surely you jest.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> LOL, the Democrats USED to be the party for the people.
> 
> They STOPPED being that 50 or so years ago.
> 
> ...



You parrot Fox News and especially Glenn Beck. It seems to be the only knowledge you have. Pathetic.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Meister said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



This guy knows his history, and has formed his opinions accordingly. In fact, it was refreshing that he does NOT rely on liberal "talking points," but in fact makes points that should be so obviously right-on (no pun intended) to everyone. He tells it like it is. You may not like what *is* (again, no pun intended), but reality bites.


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Reality will bite you next Tuesday, Maggie.  Gotta anymore of your less than witty comments?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

I wonder if TP members are mostly recent immigrants.  It's the only explanation why the group didn't exist when the uber-Liberal Cheney Administration was in power for eight years.


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I wonder if TP members are mostly recent immigrants.  It's the only explanation why the group didn't exist when the uber-Liberal Cheney Administration was in power for eight years.



I believe, and I may be wrong that it really did start under the bush administration.  I know I ended up being pissed at him in a lot of different way with his policy making.  But, when the TP's didn't see the change and maybe just getting worse....they started the movement.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 27, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> so when Obama gave at least 80 billion to big pharmaceutical and hundreds of billions to the insurance industry with the rip-off Obamacare, and TARP, he wasn't catering to Wall Street. If Bush tried all of that , you'd have an aneurysm.
> 
> Actually, looks like you already are.



Regarding the pharmaceutical deal, you have it backward. They agreed to *cut* costs amounting to $80 billion over ten years, which included a 50% reduction in the "donut hole," in return for the government not pursuing purchase of cheaper drugs from Canada, et al., which Big Pharma argued (rightfully) would have prevented them from free market competition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 27, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Oct 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Yeah, I noticed she had nothing to say about an honest post, but tried to impugn me.   I guess when she has nothing, she still needs to say something.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 28, 2010)

Wry Catcher said:


> The tea party is nothing more than a pep rally, a bunch of people who will sit in the stands, watch what happens and never understand the game.
> The tp mentality in a nutshell (kind of poetic, given Meister and Stephanie are t baggers) is simple solutions to complex problems.
> There is no critical thinking associated with the tp; it is an emotional reaction, more hysterical than rational.
> The leaders of the tp movement are getting rich making speeches, the substance of which is, "hooray for our side", using code and pejoratives to attack current officials.
> The foundation of the tp is greed and racism.



hahahah, you lefties crack me up..LIKE everything has to be critical thought about.
funny how sometimes the answers CAN BE SO SIMPLE. but that would be too much for you lefties, you all think you have to analyze and critical think shit to death, cause than that makes you seem intelligent and high and mighty.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > What do you liberals do for work? Government employees?
> ...



which you can't answer. 

Thank ewe!


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > so when Obama gave at least 80 billion to big pharmaceutical and hundreds of billions to the insurance industry with the rip-off Obamacare, and TARP, he wasn't catering to Wall Street. If Bush tried all of that , you'd have an aneurysm.
> ...



Gee, ewe sound like Bush. Imagine that.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 28, 2010)

topspin said:


> because they know we are spending too much, and if the tea party can take out some established republican spenders then they can open a can of whuppass on current dems spendatrons.



Deficit spending is not new, what's new is simply one more example of hypocrisy on the right.  Bush spent an estimated $10 billion a month on a war of choice in Iraq, OFF BUDGET, and only real fiscal conservatives cared.
He created a huge fiscal problem which became an abyss by the time President Obama took office.
Today everyone wants to be known as a fiscal conservative, and the cry for deficit reduction is loud and clear, but the method of bringing spending under control is mute.  Cut spending you say?  Fine, what should be cut AND explain the consequences (yes, that takes critical thought, if one were to answer the question fully and honestly) both intended (obvious) and unintended.
The supporter of tea party types and even their candidates don't have a clue.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The tea party is nothing more than a pep rally, a bunch of people who will sit in the stands, watch what happens and never understand the game.
> ...



Stoopid people are always hostile to critical thinking and this thread helps show TP supporters like you are fucking brain dead.  

Using your own words explain the TPM.  One of your fellow TPers utterly failed the simple question. Will you?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Sorry.  Should have made it clear that asking if you would fail was purely rhetorical.


----------



## editec (Oct 28, 2010)

Have you ever met a Tea Party person who was not a Republican?

I haven't.

Astroturf?

No. Nancy is wrong if she said that.

They're grassroot Republicans, plain and simple.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

editec said:


> Have you ever met a Tea Party person who was not a Republican?
> 
> I haven't.
> 
> ...



I think they are the conservatives, and not just the republicans.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 28, 2010)

editec said:


> Have you ever met a Tea Party person who was not a Republican?
> 
> I haven't.
> 
> ...



And?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever met a Tea Party person who was not a Republican?
> ...



Considering the bulk were bush supporters that does not make sense.


----------



## Titanic Sailor (Oct 28, 2010)

Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.

What's your point?

The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?


----------



## editec (Oct 28, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?


 
A significant percentage of Americans want change, I'll grant you that.

Do they want a return to the failed policies that got us into the economic mess we're in now?

I rather doubt it.

Sadly, I don't see anybody with a real plan to change things in a meaningful way.

Not Obama, not the Dems, certainly not the Reps and not their semi-populist movement calling itself the Tea-Party movement, either.



> In a cautionary note, voters overwhelmingly say they don&#8217;t want a Republican takeover to result in gridlock in Congress. *Four-fifths (80%) say they want Republicans and Democrats to work together to get things done,* as opposed to rigidly sticking to principles. (16%)
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/28/2589723/republicans-win-house-get-no-mandate.html#ixzz13f0K2kQp​​




The American people seem to have more sense generally, than some of you partisans give them credit for.​ 
They're pissed at BOTH PARTIES, with a more typical level of ire directed at _whichever party currently holds the reins of power._​ 
This time round, that means that they're holding the Dems responsible -- as well they should, I might add.​


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

editec said:


> *Have you ever met a Tea Party person who was not a Republican?*
> I haven't.
> 
> Astroturf?
> ...



Libertarians, Independents
But, I haven't ever met a liberal that was a Tea Party member.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Considering you don't know what your talking about.....now that makes sense.
I think most people in the prior two elections before Obama voted for the lesser of two evils, Curve.   Most republicans couldn't stand Kerry, or Gore, plain and simple.  I feel most on the right voted for the person who they felt would do the least amount of damage.
Most conservatives were not too keen with Bush, I being one of them.


----------



## strollingbones (Oct 28, 2010)

i went to a tea party rally....they were not welcoming.....i didnt come away with a good impression of them at all....hardly an inclusive party


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That your comment has to do with mine...how?

Regarding the election, time you folks realized that yes, you will win this battle, but you will NOT win the war. Right now you have plenty of ammunition, but...you have no advanced battle plans beyond November 3, 2010.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I know. These are toughies...


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Which "honest post" would you be talking about? The one about drinking the Kool-aid made against someone who clearly knows a helluva lot more history than you do? Or the initial question "Why do liberals fear the TP movement"?? I can't recall if I answered that here, but I certainly have elsewhere. And the answer to your dumb question is that no one (including me) "fears" the tea party. They have every right to form whatever "movement" they want. It's also my "right" to laugh at the lack of intelligent thought that most of their candidates possess.  *I've seen more posters right on this board who support the tea party who have more brains and the capability of rational discourse.*


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Another one slow to get it. Skip my comments except for that one. Still too tough for ya?


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Are you talking about the president getting a blowjob in office is okay these days, or the lie about 600,000 innocent civilians getting killed by our troops.  You really are that stupid to feed into the lie....pathetic


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Titanic Sailor said:
> ...



"Can't" implies I don't know the answer, stupid. "Won't" would have been more appropriate, stupid. No, I don't work for the government. But what if I did? Would that answer make your day? If so, that's why it was a stupid question.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Looks like maggie has her panties all in a bunch today.  I think they're going to get a whole lot more twisted in the coming days leading up to the election.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Typical response from someone who has obviously lost the debate. _["I'll just back slowly out of the room now and hopefully my little chuckle will be the last word on the subject and I'll look smart..."]_


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Titanic Sailor said:


> Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?



Of course you're dead wrong on BOTH of your points.

It's more like half approve/disapprove of Obama policies, consistently, as per ALL THE POLLS here.

Obama: Job Ratings

*Congress* is despised by nearly everyone, but that was true when Bush was president too.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Titanic Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.
> ...



Are you talking about Obama's policies?  Or, Obama's job approval ratings?  Two entirely different subjects.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



It would be helpful if you were smart enough to actually POST what the fuck you want answered.

No, blowjobs in office aren't okay. Huh? It wasn't okay for Clinton either. What the FUCK does THAT have anything to do with ANYTHING? Get over it and move on, idiot.

The civilian war dead will never be accurate for a variety of reasons. The Iraqis bury their dead as soon as possible, without reporting deaths, so for the most part only estimates could be provided. Second, thousands became refugees arriving in bordering and often hostile countries, so no one knows what happened to all of them once they arrived. There were reports that many were jailed or kept in camps. 

The Bush Administration relied on this report, which is incomplete (_Gaps in recording and reporting suggest that even our highest totals to date may be missing many civilian deaths from violence_:

Iraq Body Count

While Richard was probably relying on the Lancet report.

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN

Somewhere between the numbers quoted in each is more accurate, but it is still a travesty. I shudder to think of all the Iraqi children who grew up knowing nothing but war, and who are now entering adolescence or teens, and guess which country they will blame for their despair? Iraq remains ripe for al-Qaeda recruiting.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Most conservatives, before the 2000 election, would have been against Gore simply because he was Clinton's vice president and for NO OTHER REASON. Once the USSC decided the 2000 election, it was the beginning of partisan gridlock and it hasn't stopped since. By 2004, the Democrats could have put up Jesus Christ himself, and not won that election against the Rove Machine. Ironically, even in spite of the midnight hour nonstop attack by the Swiftboaters against Kerry, he still gave ol' Junior a run for his money.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Titanic Sailor said:
> ...



I do wake up somedays shaking my head over the abject ignorance of the people who post here sometimes. And that's why, to your second point, I'm anxious for the Republican sweep. I'm seriously interested in seeing just how they think they're going to solve all our problems. It's a fucking joke.

I do enjoy annoying you, however. It's always intriguing how I can get under your skin because for every point you make, I have a counterpoint. Which makes you NEVER "*all* right" (correct), *all* the time, and I know that must shatter your ego, big time.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Titanic Sailor said:
> ...



His approval ratings are even higher! 

Obama: Favorability


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You were talking about policies, and yet you bring no polls on his policies, Maggie.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Trust me, maggie....there is nothing a internet stranger could say that would shatter my ego.


----------



## Meister (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Sounds like spinning to me, maggie.  Kerry, and Gores personalities are what killed their chances.

Remember John Kerry buying a "Huntin' license"?  My God, he couldn't relate to anyone but his base.


----------



## k2skier (Oct 28, 2010)

Best bumper sticker ever for the TPers


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Go to the pollingreport.com home page, and you'll see a variety of categories you can click on. They don't "do" polls as a rule; they report the _results_ of all the polls, including all the Q&As. You can also keep scrolling to the bottom and bring up previous years within any topic, going back at least to 1999 or 2000, and possibly before. I can't remember.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. As for Kerry, he no way would have been my first choice, but again, in spite of his not being a natural good ol' boy, he came very close to denying Bush43 a second term like Bush41. Were it not for the voting shenanigans in Ohio, I still believe Kerry would have won.

People that will actually vote depending on a candidates slipups or insignificant faux pas is just plain dumb. I feel the same way about people who will vote based on a person's good looks, like that has anything to do with the way he/she might govern.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I apologize for the ego remark. I have a confession to make. When I wrote that, for some reason I was thinking I was responding to Manifold, not Meister. I know you don't have an ego problem, whereas he does. 

  Senior moment!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Voted for the one they thought would do the least harm?  Then they should not have voted for the one that sent our Troops to invade two nations that never attacked us, the one that utterly failed to protect one single American on 9/11, the one that used Signing Statements to avoid Federal law, the one that condoned torture and proudly proclaimed to the world the US operates secret international prisons, the one that fucking made a press corps joke out of not finding wmd, the one that said "Bring it on!"

The tea party is nothing more than a corporate funded orgy of psyhological incest among the ignorant Nationalists who cheered the Liberal policy of Nation Building that directly lead to two separate Islamic Theocracies being installed.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Everyone has an ego problem but not everyone is honest about it.


----------



## Samson (Oct 28, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .



Yeah, but I'm glad Slickwillie Stainmaker is back on the campaign trail:


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .
> ...



You demonize clinton for getting a blowjob but praised bush for needlessly killing our Troops.  At least your jealousy is consistent.


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .
> ...



Your postings on Clinton's sexcapades have set a record, especially considering it was 15 years ago!! Get some help, man.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 28, 2010)

I dunno.

I like gettin blowjobs from chicks.

Maybe Samson is a little "different".


----------



## JamesMorrison (Oct 28, 2010)

Richard-H said:


> It is abundantly clear that you have no respect whatsoever for working people. A an arrogant distain for working people who stand up for themselves.



I would suggest this abundance of  clarity only arises in your mind but if not, I invite you, and those that agree with you, to simply point out in my comments those posts (anywhere)which might suggest your claim is actually true.



Richard-H said:


> It is also clear that you like to play the "French card", oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong. In fact, the French are our greatest allies historically, espouse political values closest to the values of the American founding fathers- in some ways more so than Americans. After all wasn't it Thomas Paine that authored the French "Rights of Man"?



Two points here: First I would ask where did I say "oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong"? Second: I do not consider the French "our greatest allies" and you might want to consider the "special relationship" that the U.S. has with the British (However much President Obama's returning the WH bust of Winston Churchill and an embarrassingly ungracious gift of an i-Pod to the Queen of England by our current President might argue otherwise). The French's help was a long time in coming (I assume you are referring to the American Revolution here). French help, secured in 1778, was not until almost two years after the Battle of Trenton (The Xmas/Hessian/Washington crossing the Delaware thingy). But even then, it is no historical secret that the French/American Alliance was a Balance of Power move by the French to weaken England. Not that there is anything wrong with Richelieus concept of raison detat, mind you. Another fact that might be mentioned is that this "great" American ally was running around the international scene shortly before the Iraq/Saddam War actively lobbying nations not to join in backing up American demands of Saddam to stand down. Given that France, and Europe in general, would have suffered more and before the U.S. had Saddam decided to go Iran-like, the French Prime Minister's and President's actions remind one of the confused and conflicted foreign policy mechanizations of Emperor Napoleon III.  Many expert foreign policy experts simply labeled this as the French leaders' futile attempt to, somehow, regain past "glories" and/or attain mere international relevance. 


Richard-H said:


> In fact you are entirely ignorant (or shall we say, just plain full oof shit?), when you compare the American Conservatives to the founding fathers. NOT!



Word of advice here: Loose the ad Ad Hominem
 attacks...They are red flags to look for regarding a weak argument or, often, just desperation.


Richard-H said:


> The current American Conservative movement (as it has for the past 50 years), represents the philosohy and interests of the British Conservatives and Europe Royalty.


No, as I said in my initial post to this thread American Conservatism closely follows Classical Liberalism which is what the founders proposed and then codified in the U.S. Constitution. You can, of course, look it up. But here is John C. Goodman: 





> Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.


But you have brought up an excellent point that shows further that you, and many others, feel that European/British Conservatisim equates with that of American conservatism. The proof of your confusion is that you co-join British Conservatism with "Europ[ean] Royalty. Frankly, I remain unconvinced. You seem to be suggesting that American Conservatives are Monarchists. Such an argument simply must be fleshed out more appropriately.

Further, if you look at European history (British history excepted) any practical real world government representation of classical liberalism is non-existent. Excepting tribalism and feudalism the only types of political constructs are nationalism, socialism (and its perversion communism), and European Conservatism. But European Conservatism, up to and slightly past Bismarck, was simply an aversion to liberalism's perversion socialism and specifically to the unrest that it provoked. The long and short of European Conservatism is simply the upholding of law and order. This conservatism, was in direct opposition to the tide of 'liberal revolutions' seen in Europe circa 1848 especially in France (see: French Revolution of 1848, European Revolutions of 1848, Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples, or Year of Revolution). That liberalism we currently see in America today can be traced to this period in Europe. It is also the basic starting point of full blown socialism. There is nothing like American Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) in Europe's history regarding actual governance, nothing. Thus the term "American Exceptionalism"



Richard-H said:


> This is especially evident in the anti-government, pro-wealthy sentiment of the American Conservative movement. Since the inception of modern government, the Europen Royalty had yearned for and worked for the destruction of these governements, so that they can resume absolute totalitarian power - especially that of absolute economic control.



Both charges in your first sentence need some evidence to back them up. Other than extreme libertarian groups out in Montana, say, what American Conservative movement expresses anti-government or pro-wealthy sentiment to the exclusion of other economic groups?  Even these groups just cited are more, passively, get out of my life than actively anti-government Such charges call for quotes and links to buttress your claim. Again, are you trying to, somehow, link the American Conservatives with European Royalty? The Tea party recognizes the need for smaller less intrusive government but not _No_ government. They, additionally call for strict constitutionalism which explicitly proscribes Royalty. Tea partiers are overwhelmingly middleclass why would they promote the exclusive rights of your 'wealthy'? Your "resume absolute totalitarian power" sounds more like the actions of the present Obama administration which American conservatives, including the Tea Party and many independents, are presently protesting. Oh, and what exactly is so bad about the wealthy? True conservatives here are more concerned about individual rights for everyone and equal opportunity for all so that they themselves have a chance to become 'wealthy. Government picking favorites destroys this effort for all but those so favored. 



Richard-H said:


> While you accuse the Democrats of existing for a tiny group of patrons, each and everyone of these patrons represents the interest of common Americans. It is also true that the Democrats have supported the interests of the vast majority of Americans - through labor laws, Union support, Social Security, Medicare, industrial regulation, consumer protections. etc...
> 
> In fact, the Democrats have been the party "by the people and for the people".



My accusations are born out in the latest actions of the Democratic Party itself. One merely has to be open to the facts after seeking them out and then analyzing Dems intent via their actual actions. Note what they do, not what they say they will or, supposedly, want to do. It is important, however to point out that the problem is not with Union members but lies with their leaders. I would have much less of a problem with unions overall if their members were able to determine whether or not they wanted to give for political purposes and, then, direct that part of their dues to a specific candidate. That is not presently the case. Only Union leaders can make that choice. Would you agree with such an individual liberty? Alternatively, are you more of a _Card Check _type of guy? Public employee unions (SEIU, AFSCME, etc) have the additional power where they actually have the ability to elect their Bosses (Democratic Politicians) and then 'bargain' with them for increased benefits. Let's not forget, also, that, during the 2008 election cycle Wall Street is proported to have given 63 % of the entire amount of political contributions by those firms to the Dems. This in addition to the Union's 400 million (USD) given to the Dems in the same election.

Honestly, your view of the Democratic Party is naïve, at best. It has been taken over by statists who strive to either receive or to redistribute wealth that they have not earned. President Clinton came from a now defunct arm of the Democratic Party that was wary of the Unions. The Dems 'Blue dog' caucus is gone as is the 'right to life' arm of the Dems. The Democratic Party that is 'for the people' is no longer. Obamacare and its statist proponents such as Pelosi and Obama have destroyed any remaining remnants of the party that might agree with, at least some, conservative ideals. 

Come January of 2011 President Obama will have to demonstrate, by actions and not rhetoric, to the American people that his concerns are inline with a center right America and that he can work with them and not a leftist socialist Democratic party. The House will be overwhelmingly GOP that, in turn, will be influenced by American conservatism. If Reid loses his seat and the Dems keep a rump majority in the upper house its majority leader will think long and hard before bucking any conservative effort. That is simply the best situation the Dems will face come the seating of the 112th Congress

JM


----------



## MaggieMae (Oct 29, 2010)

JamesMorrison said:
			
		

> Word of advice here: Loose the ad Ad Hominem
> attacks...They are red flags to look for regarding a weak argument or, often, just desperation.



Funny, everyone says that when they're novices. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. 

Btw, your post is waaaaaaaaaaay too long. If you want to make several points, it's best to split them up in separate posts. Otherwise, you don't get read.


----------



## JamesMorrison (Oct 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An assumption, a prediction, and free advice all in one post. This is, perhaps, your attempt to illustrate an excellent example of your longing for economy in posting? But, there can be wisdom in choosing value over economy. All other things being equal, would you choose a Cadillac or Mercedes Benz over a Yugo for personal longterm transportation? If you were a thoughtful astronaut which space program might you favor; Soviet or American?

Surely you have no objection to me answering, one by one, Richard-H's charges against me? If not then perhaps you might ask him to shorten his list of accusations. But then, that might seem like you are trying to abridge _his _free speech, wouldn't it?

As far as splitting up the posts, two points. First the coherence of the argument would suffer. The second point would utilize your fondness for economy of the post. It has been my experience working with programming PCs back in the 80's, where storage capacity (RAM and Disc) was at a premium, that it was often better to 'lump the code together' (for lack of a more detailed explanation). This was because many times each module would have to have a certain mandatory bit of code for the module to run correctly. The more modules the more often that code would be unnecessarily repeated. Different computer languages treated this differently, of course, but we had to take this into account.

However, there is a much simpler remedy for you RE your concern for the length of my posts that you yourself have justed alluded to: Skip my posts entirely. This should be especially to your advantage when, like the post in question, they are not even addressed to you.

JM


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 30, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JamesMorrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps.  But he's right.  Ad hominem and/or mud slinging almost always signals that the opponent is out of ammunition and insults are all he or she has left.

And maybe that's why the Left is so insulting, demeaning, and hateful toward the Tea Party movement.  They really can't debate them on the issues.  So they try to accuse the Tea Partiers of intent or motive that simply has not been demonstrated thus far.

Don't you think that it is true that we often most fear (or resent or hate) those we suspect are right but don't want them to be?


----------



## EriktheRed (Nov 1, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Samson (Nov 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I realize why you're embarrassed to recall, but....

_*He's BAAAAAACK.*_

Campaigning for losing Dems from WV to FL.


----------



## Samson (Nov 1, 2010)

Sallow said:


> I dunno.
> 
> I like gettin blowjobs from chicks.
> 
> Maybe Samson is a little "different".





When you're President of the USA, I'll be impressed.

Until then, what your paying $10 a pop for isn't very impressive.


----------



## Samson (Nov 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





I thought I was just posting about Slickwillie Stainmaker


----------

