# Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers wouldve hated your guts



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2011)

This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..

SNIP:
posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien 
printer-friendly 
Talk show host Bill Maher once again displayed his ignorance for Americas history and founding by telling Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers would have hated their guts.
As youd come to expect from Maher he constantly referred to members of the Tea Party as teabaggers  which would probably be an insult coming from virtually everybody else. When Maher uses this word, however, the Tea Party should wear it as a badge of honor.
Next he told Tea Partiers that the Founding Fathers were nothing like them. No, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington and all the others were profoundly different. How?

 Here comes Maher:video at site.


> Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up  like them, and smell like them, I think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated  your guts. And whats more, you wouldve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.


Video (via Mediaite):

SEE VIDEO( more from the idiot Maher) and read it all with comments.
Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would?ve hated your guts  Hot Air


----------



## B. Kidd (Jan 16, 2011)

I caught Maher's show Friday night. He's not even funny anymore and don't even know why HBO still renews him. Guest James Carville rarely laughed at his stuff and even looked at Maher a couple of times like he was nuts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 16, 2011)

Bill Maher IS FULL OF SHIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TARED AND FETHERED HIS ASS.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 16, 2011)

Maher hasn't been funny since he left Comedy Central.

Politically Incorrect was a great show when he was an equal opportunity critic. Then, it moved to ABC and he turned into just another common fifth columnist agitator.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all. 

Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.
> 
> Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.



Why even give the piece of shit that he doesn't deserve respect


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.
> 
> Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.



Yet, you haven't exactly said he's wrong.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.
> ...



Unlike Maher, I don't speak on behalf of anyone, living or dead. To do so, in my opinion, would be arrogant, and more than a tad stupid. I would be no better than Maher. I need not prove him wrong. He made the ridiculous claim. Anyone who takes his claim as fact is, frankly, far too stupid to understand the stupidity of his remarks. In short, he made the claim - which is unprovable - and that, to me, speaks enough of his intellect.


----------



## Sherry (Jan 16, 2011)

Eh, he just enjoys stirring the pot....he, and others, seem annoyed that they've yet to find that collective button to push and really rile up the TPM.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Well you're correct, it's impossible to ascertain what the FF's would've thought of this 'Movement.'  But as far as the accuracy of his factual claims in his little rant, I think we can agree they're more or less correct.  I also think the average teaperson has a very warped view of who the founding fathers were as people - That I agree with.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right. I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally, I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 16, 2011)

On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.

I'm fairly certain the Left wants to start a Civil War


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.



This is indeed an area where most Tea Partiers could use a bit of humility.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued.



Bingo.  Some would support the tea people (though I'm not quite sure who), and some, believe it or not, would agree with the Democrats.

It would just set my heart aflutter if I could hear a conservative admit that simple statement; "Some would agree with the Democrats."


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right.* I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. *They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally,* I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs*. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.




How do you marry the above post, with this post:
"Unlike Maher,* I don't speak on behalf of anyone, living or dead.* To do so, in my opinion, would be arrogant, and more than a tad stupid. I would be no better than Maher. I need not prove him wrong. He made the ridiculous claim. Anyone who takes his claim as fact is, frankly, far too stupid to understand the stupidity of his remarks. In short, he made the claim - which is unprovable - and that, to me, speaks enough of his intellect."


That aside, the uber patriots on this site - the Mr T's, Big Rebs and all the other flag wavers are constantly ramping up the rhetoric on what the founder fathers wanted and said. As do the Tea Partiers themselves. So all the name calling everybody has done on this thread towards Maher must go to the Tea Partiers themselves (well, a lot of them)....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> 
> I'm fairly certain the Left wants to start a Civil War



You mean like those maps on Palin's website with crosshairs on them? That kind of civility? To 'lock and reload'? That what you talking about?


----------



## elvis (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> ...



so you're blaming Palin for the shootings?


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued.
> ...



You know what you said about not being sure who. Well, the same is true the other way around. I tend to look at the documents and wonder if any of the Founders would agree with taking away our freedoms. Maybe some would agree with the Dems, maybe not. One thing I am certain of.... none of us has the right to speak on behalf of the dead. I find this whole 'invoking the names' of our national heroes to be ridiculous. If you can't stand on your own feet, without invoking the memory of others - then you shouldn't be participating. No one has the right to speak on their behalf. No one. Right. Or left.


----------



## 007 (Jan 16, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> *
> I'm fairly certain the Left wants to start a Civil War*



I'd welcome that.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> ...



omg, not you too.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

elvis said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Not even talking about the shootings. Talking about civil war....apparently....


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> One thing I am certain of.... none of us has the right to speak on behalf of the dead. I find this whole 'invoking the names' of our national heroes to be ridiculous. If you can't stand on your own feet, without invoking the memory of others - then you shouldn't be participating. No one has the right to speak on their behalf. No one. Right. Or left.



Do you object to a political movement adopting the moniker of "the Tea Party"?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> ...



Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit A.


----------



## elvis (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



ahh.  ok.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> ...



Yea, cuz absolutely no one has mentioned that in the past week. 

And, for the umpteenth time... Palin explained the 'don't retreat, reload' remark back during the campaign. When she first used it. 'Reload' - back the ballot box. Try and keep up. Or, alternatively, continue making yourself look like you don't know what you're talking about. Either is fine.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I am certain of.... none of us has the right to speak on behalf of the dead. I find this whole 'invoking the names' of our national heroes to be ridiculous. If you can't stand on your own feet, without invoking the memory of others - then you shouldn't be participating. No one has the right to speak on their behalf. No one. Right. Or left.
> ...



Once again, for the benefit of those who were absent on the first day of school....

Taxed
Enough
Already. 

Please learn. There will be a pop quiz.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



So that's a no? Invoking those who came before isn't so bad after all, I suppose. Damn, there goes that righteousness.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why the rhetoric with Palin then. Why not just say "go to the ballot box"? Because it's not as effective and she (and many other pollies) like to ramp up the rhetoric...shrug...

As for not knowing what I'm talking about, you mean like telling people not to speak on behalf of the FF's and then doing exactly that like you just did?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Oh, give me a break. Don't be so disingenuous. You know, I know and everybody knows why they chose the tea party moniker. The fact that it makes a little anagram that fits their political set up is nice and fluffy and all that, but please, don't try and think we're all idiots....


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Because 'Don't Retreat, Reload' makes a snappy soundbite. Do you have no idea how the media works? Snappy soundbites are required for media coverage. Grow up.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?


----------



## Sherry (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



She formed an educated opinion and prefaced it with "I think...", which I hope all of us could distinguish as not attempting to speak on behalf of anyone.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Why the rhetoric with Palin then. Why not just say "go to the ballot box"? Because it's not as effective and she (and many other pollies) like to ramp up the rhetoric...shrug...
> 
> As for not knowing what I'm talking about, you mean like telling people not to speak on behalf of the FF's and then doing exactly that like you just did?



Because 'Don't Retreat, Reload' makes a snappy soundbite. Do you have no idea how the media works? Snappy soundbites are required for media coverage. Grow up.[/QUOTE]

Er, see the second sentence in my post. That's exactly what I said....And from all the bitching and moaning that goes on on these boards (especially from the right about the MSM), snappy soundbites is one of their bugbears.
Does the right ever have any solutions to anything, or do they just bitch and moan all the time...


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?




Now that's not fair. You didn't include the "...unless I find the comparison apt" clause above when you said "I find this whole 'invoking the names' of our national heroes to be ridiculous."

You'll have to forgive people for being confused!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

Sherry said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



So did Maher: "*I think* it&#8217;s pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts"...

Edit: That aside, Maher's was an educated opinion, too...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Absolutely. And the Boston Tea Party led to the revolution and your FF's writing up a few interesting documents. So what were you inferring when Greenbeard made the connection and you answered with the moniker? What was the point of your answer?


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why the rhetoric with Palin then. Why not just say "go to the ballot box"? Because it's not as effective and she (and many other pollies) like to ramp up the rhetoric...shrug...
> ...



Er, see the second sentence in my post. That's exactly what I said....And from all the bitching and moaning that goes on on these boards (especially from the right about the MSM), snappy soundbites is one of their bugbears.
Does the right ever have any solutions to anything, or do they just bitch and moan all the time...[/QUOTE]

What? Why is it for the right to solve it? 

The only reason the left don't 'bitch and moan' is that the liberal media doesn't continually lie about them. The right wing media does.... and they bitch and moan about that. 

Why is it for us to solve? Why can't the media just do their fucking jobs properly? And by media I mean all the media.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



My point... the TEA party was an event. The TEA Parties took their name from a related historical event. They did not invoke the name of any individual or group. My point... Maher's said the 'founding fathers would hate' the TEA Parties. My point... Maher's cannot speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers. My point.... Maher's is, again, lying to his audience... and my point... his audience are generally fucking stupid and will take every word he says as fact. 

I've made my point.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



No.  It's a ridiculous correlation.  #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation *without representation.*  The tea people *had* representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit.  #2, their taxes haven't gone up.

So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic.  In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 16, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> 
> SNIP:
> posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
> ...



Oh, you just reminded me his new season starts this month.  

_Yayyy._

He's right about the founding fathers.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> No.  It's a ridiculous correlation.  #1, in the 18th century the issue was taxation *without representation.*  The tea people *had* representation, they just lost an election and threw a hissy fit.  #2, their taxes haven't gone up.
> 
> So yes, they chose a patriotic name to create the facade that they were doing something patriotic.  In reality, they're just pissing and stomping because they lost an election.



I've always thought they were a little more Whiskey Rebellion than Boston Tea Party.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> ...



Oh, cool. When, exactly, did Maher interview the Founding Fathers.... and it's interesting to know that they all agree... because they sure as hell didn't when they were alive. 

And.... for the record, I would be saying the same thing if Glen Beck claimed that the Founders (as a group) would support the TEA Parties. 

It is no wonder that the country is such a fucking mess. Generally, we have no concept of 'critical thinking'.


----------



## Sherry (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Seriously, both sides could easily twist it either way. Is it so difficult to agree that there is a comparison to the masses demonstrating against their perceived wrongs from the government??


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Again, for the record (and this is fact), the TEA Parties started under Bush, not Obama. So, while the majority may have joined since, the origins pre-date the black guy in the White House. And.... before you talk about taxes not going up.... I would refer you  to the list of taxes in the new Health Care bill. Then tell me that taxes ain't going up. And try to keep a straight face when you say it.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



You think we have to interview them to understand their pov?  

There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough.  Historical and factual.  There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.  

Learn something.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I think that no one has the right to decide how a dead person would think if they were alive today. I know that the Founders were individuals. I know they did NOT have a 'point of view'. I know they had a variety of points of view. I know that they fought and argued with each other. I know that anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this was partisan bullshit, designed to inflame the right. I think that Maher's is a fucking bullshit artist. 

I know that both the right and the left lay claim to people that they have no right to lay claim to... in order to justify more partisan bullshit.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> And.... before you talk about taxes not going up.... I would refer you  to the list of taxes in the new Health Care bill.



They want to take to the streets because FSA contributions are capped (above the current average contribution)? Or maybe they're afraid their favorite tax deductions will be lessened? Intolerable tax increases!


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



There were several povs and then there was John Adams.  I really wish you and others would stop with the "both parties do it" rhetoric.  It's not true and what's more, it's silly.

Maher is a political animal and he's funny.   I don't think this particular comment was bullshit.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

One thing's for sure - In their day, if they were advocating for the wealthy (eg Madison), they made no bones about the fact that they were advocating for the wealthy.  

If I had to venture a guess, I think at minimum they'd be rolling their eyes something fierce at average people tricked into voting against their self interests.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I say 'both sides do it' because that is factually accurate. I've seen right wingers claim the Founders thoughts. I've seen the left wingers claim the same. Neither are right to claim the Founding Fathers. Maher's is not right. The Founders encompassed a wide variety of views. Some of which would fit within one or other of today's parties. That does not give anyone the right to take ownership of the Founders. Those men belong to all the people - not just one party. It is divisive and downright dishonest to claim otherwise. 

Maher is an ass. And, his comment was offensive, divisive bullshit. I thought Obama wanted a better, more civil discourse. Is this how you think you will achieve that? Because I can guarantee you... it is not.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I hate to do this, but sometimes I have to.  There are people who believe the moon landing was faked.  Question: Does that mean there's any meaningful discourse happening about whether it was or not?  Answer: No.

Do you see what I'm saying here?  Yes, left-wingers exist that claim the founders.  But it's such a minority as a percentage of the total phenomenon.  In other words, it is so profoundly a right-wing practice, that it's just shy of being exclusively right-wing.  Maher's comments in and of themselves were only made to expose and debunk the comments and actions of right-wingers regarding the founders.  

Just saying "Both sides do it" is disingenuous, because it suggests that they do it roughly equally.  They don't.  It's so rare on the left that it's practically non-existent.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



In my view, there are several reasons why it is less common from the left:

1. As a general rule, they do not have the same respect for the founders as the right.

2. The right have been pretty good at linking the views of individual founders to their own principles. That is, generally, because the right cling to the Constitution as the roadmap for the country. The left, not so much. 

3. Until recently, the left saw the Founders as a right wing bunch. Now, they've understood that millions of Americans respect the founders and the Constitution. So now, they're trying to claim ownership of both. 

It's a vote winning tactic.


----------



## Ravi (Jan 16, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> 
> SNIP:
> posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
> ...


Smell like them...hahahaha! How un-PC. And how amusing you are upset by un-PC humor.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



And in my view, they're just not as shameless as the right.  But if we can agree on just the facts (in this case, that it's far more prevalent on the right), we can set aside our views on why.  Just this once.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


The FF opposed an oppressive government.  The current batch of Statists support oppressive government.  It's reasonable to presume that they would also have supported King George, and would have informed on the dangerous rebels who were seeking to secure freedom for themselves and their fellow countrymen.  


So...it looks like Maher's an idiot.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a stupidity competition going on that I'm not aware of?


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


What's stupid about it?  Statists support big oppressive government.  King George had a big oppressive government.  Statists don't support individual liberty.  The FF did.  

Do I need to use smaller words?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Really it's stupid? I think it even more stupid to question the content of Daves post. He's dead on target.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No, you need to use less ridiculous words.


----------



## jillian (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



the tea party takes its' name from what it believes to be a revolutionary act as a way of telegraphing its willingness to entertain revolution. the fact that the tea party pretends to give a damn about taxess after letting baby bush run up deficits for eight years on two wars of choice is just pathetic. they start the rant and rave after their boy lost. 

it's the same rabid right that was bush's base and his dead-enders.

luckily, palin seems to be turning people off the more they listen to her.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


I believe you meant to say "uncomfortably true".


----------



## jillian (Jan 16, 2011)

Sherry said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



i wish palin's opinion about anything was educated.


----------



## Sherry (Jan 16, 2011)

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



I was referring to CG and an earlier post....not Palin.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



O....Kay....

For the sake of argument, lets say I agree that the Dems want a "Bigger government."  Can you please direct me to where anyone, here or anyone else, has said they wish we had a "More oppressive government?"


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2011)

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



pfeeesh, like yours calling people dead enders and loons.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


A bigger government IS a more oppressive government.  Less gov't = more freedom.  It's a simple equation.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Mmmm-hmmm.

Have you ever considered it's your thought process that's simple?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 16, 2011)

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Jillian I hope you will agree that the democrats have some real highly edumcated people elected to high places. Sarah is actually a diamond in the rough, new and fresh to politics. Some democrats who have been elected have no excuses for their stupidity.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


If you can point to a big government in history that offered more freedom to its citizens than a smaller government, go right ahead, but history isn't going to be too cooperative.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> *Statists don't support individual liberty.  The FF did.  *


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > *Statists don't support individual liberty.  The FF did.  *



Really grump what is it that you find so funny? I see nothing funny with Daves comment.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The fact your founding fathers supported individual liberty...they didn't,,,,


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

Bill Maher is like most extremists.  Makes some good points and then blows it by carrying it to extremes.
One thing is certain our founding fathers were not an in synch bunch either.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued.
> ...



Are you sure  those aren't lemmings in your avy?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Yeah they were a bunch of slave owners nothing more


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 16, 2011)

Who is Bill Maher?  Why should I care what he says?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




So we have jumped right into a civil war?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 16, 2011)

Glad to see Maher is demonstrating what little he knows. 

Isnt free speech great? It gives people plenty of rope to hang themselves.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Wrong less govt means more freedom from govt, but corporations will take over your freedoms just like the govt would.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > *Statists don't support individual liberty.  The FF did.  *


Which part do you dispute?  Do you think Statists support individual liberty, or do you think the Founding Fathers didn't?


----------



## elvis (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It's tough to say they did when many of them were slave owners.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

elvis said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



And many only wanted the ruling class involved in government... Madison in particular, horrified at the prospect of the rabble being involved.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Ummm...yes, they did.  You might want to read our Constitution, although a guy who lives in a monarchy might have a tough time understanding it.  If you have any questions, let us know.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Yeah, thanks for that class-war non-sequitur.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

elvis said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Indeed.  Luckily, the document they wrote specified a means both for altering it when required and for creating new laws.  Thanks to their efforts, slavery is no longer legal.  


Funny how everyone's got their panties in a wad about the FF, but no one's batting an eye about Statists not supporting individual liberty.


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Not unlike today's Democrats.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



His supporting comments (the reasons behind his thesis) are unimpeachable. He has their own words to back him up.
I'm really not feeling any rationality behind the outrage.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



P.J. O'Rourke pretty much said the same to "one" tea partier:
Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Ghost - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 16, 2011)

Many of the Tea Party members have failings that many of the Founders possessed.  Getting over those problems eventually made America a much better place.  Now some of the Tea Party wants to drag America back to the bad old days.  Nice to know that will never happen.  Several of the Founders would have looked at the Tea Party movement and mobilized the militia to hunt down all the tea bags because they were boycotted.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



That's ridiculous Hank Hill.  You're flailing.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Snappy soundbites that have a double meaning load the guns without pulling the triggers, limiting liability. See how that works?


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



okayyyyy

Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Ghost - Paul J. O'Rourke - Open Salon


----------



## daveman (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Not at all.  Leadership of the Democratic Party think the proles are too stupid to make their own decisions.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cuyo again. 
Meanwhile, the hissy fit was directed, because it wasn't a grass roots movement at all, but an astro turf project.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 16, 2011)

Ah but the national debt _is_ an issue of taxation without representation. Your spending now taxes our children and grandchildren without their say.

Responsible citizens would cut the spending so they are spending less than what they are taking in.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



Gawd. What is it with some folks that they want to elect men who they want to drink beer and grill outdoors with and women they consider to be MILFs? Different functions require different skills, people.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A quick lesson for you Dave.

You know "We the people" - the part that starts you constitution. That's where it falls over right there. When they were talking about "we the people". who exactly were they talking about? 

Elvis talks about slaves as does Fitnah. I'll go one step further. When you say they were talking about individual freedom and we the people were they referring to:
1) Slaves? No
2) Women? Nope
3) Non land owners? Nada
4) Soldiers/militia? Nope

They were talking about the land-owning elite. So your constitution starts and stops at the first three words. You are of the mistaken belief that when the document was put together they were referring to all citizenry of the colonies. Clearly they weren't. Unless you believe that in order to be a full citizen of the US you shouldn't have voting rights, which means no representation at a political level. You Ok with that.

BTW, the Queen is our head of state. Please tell me what rights you have that I don't. What can you do, that I can't....take your time....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



1) Name a so-called statist on this board
2) Then tell me how said person does not support individual liberty
3) While you're at it, explain what you think individual liberty is.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Well, you need to keep up with the current use of variations on "liberty."
Various budget departments came up with the idea of "consumer empowerment" to convey the idea of "figure it out your damned self" to cut down on the people they had to employ answering phones at the "customer service" desks.


----------



## Barb (Jan 16, 2011)

daveman said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Oh, the irony


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

The Tea Patry has an unrealistic religious kind of view of the founding fathers.
They use this unrealistic view to justify what THEY want, which is not necessarially what the founding fathers intended.

If Mr. Peabody were just here to take them back in his wayback machine....

btw some of the recent Tea Party additions to congress are now realizing some truths in govt.
I don't think they are very happy either.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> btw some of the recent Tea Party additions to congress are now realizing some truths in govt.
> I don't think they are very happy either.



What sort of things?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > btw some of the recent Tea Party additions to congress are now realizing some truths in govt.
> ...



Just wait for it.

As I predicted by next fall many new congressional Tea party members will be decried as not really being conservatives by their former supporters.

Idealism does not hold up well in congress.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

Ah, roger. Nor is it practical....


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 16, 2011)

The media stories about the TP congressional members induction into the reality of congress will likely start tomorrow.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 16, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> 
> SNIP:
> posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
> ...



Maher wants socialism, he's been fairly clear in that desire.

So here's a formally funny person, clinging on to a one shtick pony.  trying to keep himself relevant in a country that doesn't care about him or what he wants.  B/c when push comes to shove Americans can't stand actual socialism.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Maher wants socialism, he's been fairly clear in that desire.
> 
> So here's a formally funny person, clinging on to a one shtick pony.  trying to keep himself relevant in a country that doesn't care about him or what he wants.  B/c when push comes to shove Americans can't stand actual socialism.



1) Maher IS funny
2) He has always been a libertarian


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 16, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Maher wants socialism, he's been fairly clear in that desire.
> ...



dont taz be bro is one.  Hope he reads this, I'm sure he'll get a laugh.

most libertarians are fiscally conservative.  Maher is anything but.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 17, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Maher IS funny



Since when?




> 2) He has always been a libertarian



Yeah, right. How many libertarians were out there telling Obama to force Congress to take over the health care industry?

You cant advocate totalitarianism and claim to be libertarian with any sort of credibility.


----------



## DF345 (Jan 17, 2011)

Bill ponders: 
"I wonder if the Founding Fathers 'really' thought the Bible was mostly bullshit like I do?"

Tell us more dear William.  It's not like (((anyone))) can read your thoughts. =)


----------



## Bones (Jan 17, 2011)

Why are the founding fathers of this nation mythologized; romanticized; thought of as gods?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 17, 2011)

Bones said:


> Why are the founding fathers of this nation mythologized; romanticized; thought of as gods?



They are only that way to those who would chip away at the documents they left for our protection. You turn them into a god or a myth you then can chip away at what they did, and what they fought for.

romanticized? It's called honor and respect something the left has no idea about, unless it's pretains to Soros or Alinksy.


----------



## editec (Jan 17, 2011)

He's right.

But more than that they'd have strung up the vast majority of our current crop of politicians AND the current crop of capitains of finance and industry, too.

We are a nation that has been captured by criminals, folks.

And I surely do not means JUST in our government, either.

In fact our government takes its marching orders from the masters who are the titans of the BANKSTER CLASS.

_BOTH _parties


----------



## Ravi (Jan 17, 2011)

What is funniest about his rant is Stephanie's reaction. And the reaction of the other rightwingloons.

"The new civility" is what they are pretending is what people want. What people want is not to be targeted with gunsights and death threats. But the loons have watered it down to mean that everyone should just be civil.

So they will carry on with their violent overthrow the government rhetoric while pretending that everyone else is not civil.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 17, 2011)

Ravi said:


> What is funniest about his rant is Stephanie's reaction. And the reaction of the other rightwingloons.
> 
> "The new civility" is what they are pretending is what people want. What people want is not to be targeted with gunsights and death threats. But the loons have watered it down to mean that everyone should just be civil.
> 
> So they will carry on with their violent overthrow the government rhetoric while pretending that everyone else is not civil.



And here we go to a frsh new start from the left at attacking the right.
Ravi the second amendment option has never been taken off the table. Keep that in mind.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 17, 2011)

Ravi said:


> What is funniest about his rant is Stephanie's reaction. And the reaction of the other rightwingloons.
> 
> "The new civility" is what they are pretending is what people want. What people want is not to be targeted with gunsights and death threats. But the loons have watered it down to mean that everyone should just be civil.
> 
> So they will carry on with their violent overthrow the government rhetoric while pretending that everyone else is not civil.



And here we go to a frsh new start from the left at attacking the right.
Ravi the second amendment option has never been taken off the table. Keep that in mind.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 17, 2011)

Ravi said:


> What is funniest about his rant is Stephanie's reaction. And the reaction of the other rightwingloons.
> 
> "The new civility" is what they are pretending is what people want. What people want is not to be targeted with gunsights and death threats. But the loons have watered it down to mean that everyone should just be civil.
> 
> So they will carry on with their violent overthrow the government rhetoric while pretending that everyone else is not civil.



LOL, people don't want to to be TARGETED with gunshights, and violent OVERTHROW the goverment rhetoric.
good grief,


----------



## California Girl (Jan 17, 2011)

Barb said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I'm not outraged. Please don't credit yourself for knowing how I feel. 

His supporting comments are much like his original claim. Bullshit.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 17, 2011)

Barb said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I'm not outraged. Please don't credit yourself for knowing how I feel. 

His supporting comments are much like his original claim. Bullshit.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 17, 2011)

Bones said:


> Why are the founding fathers of this nation mythologized; romanticized; thought of as gods?



B/c they did what they did knowing that if we lost the Revolution, they would have been hung by the neck until dead.

You got a better reason to look up to a small group of people?


----------



## jillian (Jan 17, 2011)

Sherry said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Sherry said:
> ...



ah... fair enough.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 17, 2011)

Bones said:


> Why are the founding fathers of this nation mythologized; romanticized; thought of as gods?



We seem to have done that for a Congresswoman in just the last week.  I don't think any of your suppositions hold true for me.  I do however, have a great deal of respect for their ability to create the foundation for a government that has become the best in the world.

So, if I understand this correctly, a comedian has become the oracle of Democratic thought.  Sort of makes sense, seeing as Democrats are a joke.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Do keep up.  The FF also designed a means of changing the document.  If they intended the original to be in force for eternity, they wouldn't have included the amendment process, would they?


Dr Grump said:


> BTW, the Queen is our head of state. Please tell me what rights you have that I don't. What can you do, that I can't....take your time....


Currently, none.  However, your bill of rights wasn't codified until 1990.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


1.  Synthaholic, for one.  
2.  He wants big nanny state government to make all his decisions for him:  Heath care, wages, what he's exposed to in the media.  
3.  Individual liberty is the freedom of the individual person to do as he pleases, restricted only where his rights interfere with the rights of others.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

Barb said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


Silly me, I forgot.  Screeching "ZOMG teh KKKorporations want to kill us all!!" is apropos in ANY discussion.


----------



## editec (Jan 17, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> > Why are the founding fathers of this nation mythologized; romanticized; thought of as gods?
> ...


 
Yes many actually.

The same could be said for COMMUNISTS who sought to overthrow the CZAR.

Do you admire them, too?

Of course not.

So perhaps, just perhaps, there must be more to it that merely they were committed to a cause, eh?


----------



## greene2120 (Jan 17, 2011)

As usual, to ALL the uninformed liberals!!! LMAO!!!!

**Obama: They Bring a KnifeWe Bring a Gun 
** Obama to His Followers: Get in Their Faces! 
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: I dont want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! Im angry! 
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: Hit Back Twice As Hard 
** Obama on the private sector: We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick. 
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat 
** Obama to lib supporters: Its time to Fight for it. 
** Obama to Latino supporters: Punish your enemies. 
** Obama to democrats: Im itching for a fight. 

WOW sarah sounds like a saint compared to him, but hey he is a liberal so it is ok.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 17, 2011)

greene2120 said:


> As usual, to ALL the uninformed liberals!!! LMAO!!!!
> 
> **Obama: They Bring a KnifeWe Bring a Gun
> ** Obama to His Followers: Get in Their Faces!
> ...



 
they don't want to be reminded of all that.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jan 17, 2011)

greene2120 said:


> As usual, to ALL the uninformed liberals!!! LMAO!!!!
> 
> **Obama: They Bring a KnifeWe Bring a Gun
> ** Obama to His Followers: Get in Their Faces!
> ...



If by private sector you mean BP who caused a massive oil spill, caused thousands of Americans to lose their jobs, and even more that lost that lost a lot of their income. And BP wasn't doing a thing to clean it up or fix it?

I just wished he actually kicked some of those people's asses who did that to the gulf coast region.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 17, 2011)

> Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And whats more, you wouldve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> > Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And whats more, you wouldve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.



wow, that was sooooooooooooooo "CIVIL" no wonder you would applaud it.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> > Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And whats more, you wouldve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.


Applauding someone who echoes your own bigotry.  Typical.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

Sounds just like you, daveman.


----------



## Ozmar (Jan 17, 2011)

California Girl said:


> It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.
> 
> Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.



Kind of like Tea-Partiers claiming to be "honoring" the spirit of those dead people?

I'm no Bill Maher fan, but I honestly think that since not a single Founding Father is alive today, any review of their words is just an interpretation of what they meant. People who claim to be constitutional conservatives are just translating the words with their own personal bias, just as liberals do the same when they say the constitution is a "living" document.

It takes audacity for Tea-Partiers to maintain that they are somehow the modern-day embodiment of the Founding Fathers. 

The Founding Fathers' words may outlive us all, but those words are only as good as how people read them. In that regard, I believe (and at the risk of sounding like I speak on behalf of the Founding Fathers) the Founding Fathers would be scratching their heads at this whole mess, as a continuation of a plethora of twists and turns of a country nothing like they envisioned.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 17, 2011)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > Now, I want you teabaggers out there to understand one thing: while you idolize the Founding Fathers and dress up like them, and smell like them, I think its pretty clear that the Founding Fathers would have hated your guts. And whats more, you wouldve hated them. They were everything you despise. They studied science, read Plato, hung out in Paris, and thought the Bible was mostly bullshit.
> ...



Once again Mr Maher is spot on with his analysis..

The founding fathers would have been repulsed by the tea baggers

The tea baggers would have been repulsed by the ideals of the founding fathers


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sounds just like you, daveman.


I'm sure it does to stupid people.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So you've been programmed by a failed comedian.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds just like you, daveman.
> ...


  Hallelujah, daylight breaks in the dim mind of daveman.  Yes, give up that type of posting to the stupid people here, daveman.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You misread, probably intentionally.

I meant it would sound that way to stupid people -- i.e., you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

I clearly saw your projection, daveman.  Give it up, kid.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I clearly saw your projection, daveman.  Give it up, kid.


No projection required, boy.  You really _are_ stupid.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 17, 2011)

daveman said:


> Do keep up.  The FF also designed a means of changing the document.  If they intended the original to be in force for eternity, they wouldn't have included the amendment process, would they?
> 
> Currently, none.  However, your bill of rights wasn't codified until 1990.



1) Cool, so if the second amendment was voted out, you'd be ok with that? Also, when they put in the amendment process do you think they were thinking of giving women/the man in the street the vote, or letting slaves vote. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'm sure one of the FF's (Hamilton? Jefferson or Adams maybe) specifically DIDN'T want some parts of society to have the vote. I could be wrong about that,though.

So our BOR wasn't codified until 1990. And?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

daveman sees straight ahead, is a concrete learner not abstract, can't extrapolate, Dr. G.

You can't hold it against him; he can't be anything else.


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Do keep up.  The FF also designed a means of changing the document.  If they intended the original to be in force for eternity, they wouldn't have included the amendment process, would they?
> ...


If the 2A was repealed, so be it.  I wouldn't like it and I think it would be a horribly bad idea, but if the amendment process was correctly followed, then it would be the will of the citizenry.


Dr Grump said:


> So our BOR wasn't codified until 1990. And?


Took you long enough, dinnit?


----------



## daveman (Jan 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman sees straight ahead, is a concrete learner not abstract, can't extrapolate, Dr. G.
> 
> You can't hold it against him; he can't be anything else.


Yes, I admit I'm not a mainstream Republican who supports everything Obama's done.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jan 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bill Maher IS FULL OF SHIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TARED AND FETHERED HIS ASS.



No they'd have let Aaron Burr deal with his ass.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 17, 2011)

Very Funny Video.  Wish I had HBO.

With Bill Maher you get a hateful political monolog, but at least it's funny, something I can say for most right and left wind political commentators.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman sees straight ahead, is a concrete learner not abstract, can't extrapolate, Dr. G.
> ...



You almost get there, then you lie.  Yes, I am a mainstream Republican.  No, I don't support everything Obama does.  What I don't like is that the far right and the far left think they are on some kind of mission to save the rest of us who are doing quite well with being American.

Oh, well: one baby step then a stumble for you daveman.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



WOW who would have guess that the board president of the liars club would call someone who hasn't been caught is a lie, a liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 17, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Maher IS FULL OF SHIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TARED AND FETHERED HIS ASS.
> ...



You do have a point.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Glad to see you and Ernie are champions of your First Amendment..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 17, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



When are yuh all gonna alearn 2 spel?


----------



## Ozmar (Jan 17, 2011)

California Girl said:


> It's always funny when a living person decides to speak on behalf of individuals who, while they may have died long ago, their words, their spirit, their courage and their politics will outlive us all.
> 
> Bill can, respectfully, go fuck himself.



Isn't that what the tea party is kind of about?


----------



## daveman (Jan 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Isn't it odd, then, how you never seem to criticize anything Obama does?  How you ride to the defense of the farthest-left posters here?  How you agree with most every Democrat policy?

If that's mainstream Republicanism, the GOP may as well change their name to DNC II.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



When you stop being a lying piece of shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Several words come to mind, lying stupid piece of shit. Is that a good summation of starkey?


----------



## daveman (Jan 18, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Not bad. I just wonder about his motives, and who he thinks he's fooling.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



1, that's a lie, and you know it.

2, I don't agree with every Democrat policy and you can't even come close to that call.

3. I do knock down sickness from the far far right that has infected the party like a disease.

That is why I am so glad Palin has realized she marginalized herself the last ten days with her bad behavior. 

Now either she cleans it up, or she pulls down not only herself but her supporters as well.

That's good for the GOP, that's good for the country.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 18, 2011)

bigreb excellently describes himself and you, daveman.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Trolling is his MO


----------



## Sallow (Jan 18, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> ...



Maher is spot on..as usual.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigreb excellently describes himself and you, daveman.



Thing is Jake I don't lie. Why would I start now? You on the other hand have been called on your lies.

I have been called on for misspeaking buI have bener been caught in a lie because I haven't lie. You have been caught not just by me but others.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





> 1, that's a lie, and you know it.


Here's an easy test for you jake call truthmatters a liar when shes busted for lying. Or how about rdean?




> 3. I do knock down sickness from the far far right that has infected the party like a disease.



You can't hide it jake right here in your reply you call the far far right a sickness, yet no mention of the far far left.
BUSTED


----------



## Claudette (Jan 18, 2011)

Maher's a comedian. 

Should anyone give a shit what he says?? 

I sure don't. Jeeze.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 18, 2011)

Maher's fun to listen to, like Rush, but not to take seriously.  They are merely serving their audiences.

Now if the FFs were alive today, Sarah would be in the kitchen, and Williams would be sweeping the pressroom floor.

Folks, let's remember who the FFs were.


----------



## Dante (Jan 18, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> This my friends is TONING down the rhetoric, the NEW civility..
> 
> SNIP:
> posted at 10:20 am on January 15, 2011 by Michael van der Galien
> ...



Bill is onto something here...but.........


but.......

Bill Maher is NOT  Democrat.


but


----------



## daveman (Jan 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Mainstream Republicans don't kiss Obama's ass, boy.


----------



## daveman (Jan 18, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Given the fact that his fellow leftists never attack the "moderate Republican" and indeed ride to his defense all the time, I'd say the only person he's fooling is himself.


----------



## huemanwrites (Jan 21, 2011)

Speaking of Bill Maher... Have any of you seen this new cartoon called B-Rock: The First Term ??  I saw it on YouTube.  It was pretty HYSTERICAL...  It's about Obama, his smoking habit and this big tough guy he turns into when he can't get hold of his smokes.  FUNNY! I though Bill might be behind it.   If you haven't seen it, I think it's worth checking out for a good laugh.  Oh yeah, and Obama actually finds bin Laden in the show...  I'm tellin' you... Real good humor-


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 21, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Your not a Republican much less mainstream so who cares, son.

Palin is now the fading image of what could have been and now never will.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 23, 2011)

Gotta love Bill Maher. Thanks for reminding me of this commentary by him.


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So you're claiming mainstream Republicans DO kiss Obama's ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



No, as much as I know the left would LOVE to believe our Founding Fathers were a bunch of atheist religion-haters, he was dead wrong on "thought the Bible was mostly bullshit".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



 daveman, your question remains immaterial.  You are not Republican so your opinion does not count.  The New Hampshire straw poll demonstrates the far right non-GOP movement has failed to take over the party.  Either it plays by mainstream GOP rules, or it starts its own party.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jan 23, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You're right in that most of the founding fathers weren't atheists, but  a lot of them were deists-which isn't Christian (like Thomas Jefferson), and some of them were Christians like Hamilton and Adams.

I think both sides have a skewed view of the founding fathers-they weren't bible touting Christians like some believe, and they weren't atheists who didn't believe either.


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So...you're not going to explain why you, a mainstream Republican, support Obama and most liberal ideals?

You're right about one thing, though.  I consider myself a conservative more than a Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

I don't have to deny a claim by you that is not true.  And you are finally honest: you are not a Republican.


----------



## California Girl (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You ought to factor just one little issue into your mocking, Joke. There aren't enough 'Republicans' to win jack shit. Without the 'far right', y'all get nothing. Either you play by our rules or we don't vote for ya.... and you have far, far more to lose than we do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

You don't have enough folks, CG, to get up a poker party.  The GOP needs the independents far more than you.  Why?  There are far more of them than yours.  So either get in line or start your own party.

You folks will blink before we do.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 23, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Jefferson used a Bible that he edited, excluding all Jesus's miracles.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Religion and the Founders concerns all those who are interested in the Constitution and the founding of our government.

Almost all of the founders came from Christian families, including Jefferson, most were baptized, and then it went from there.  Ethan Allan, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin were clearly not Christian.  Adams was Unitarian, refusing to believe in the triune God.  The Pickneys from South Carolina were Catholics.

All of them with the exception of John Jay, perhaps Patrick Henry, in no way shape fashion or form wanted a union of church and state at the national level: thus the 1st Amendment.


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't have to deny a claim by you that is not true.


You're not fooling anyone, Obama fanboi.  


JakeStarkey said:


> And you are finally honest: you are not a Republican.


I'm a conservative.  That's what Republicans are supposed to be.

There's a party for liberals.  The GOP ain't it.  I suggest you change your registration.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

Nope, daveman, you don't define anything for anybody.  I mean, you are barely sentient.  So when we pick the candidate we want for the party, you will vote for him.  Or go elsewhere: who cares?


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, daveman, you don't define anything for anybody.  I mean, you are barely sentient.  So when we pick the candidate we want for the party, you will vote for him.  Or go elsewhere: who cares?


I bet if I joined you in supporting Obama, you'd think I was smart.  

You're funny, boy.  But you need to realize that liberal Republicans, along with the Democrats,  are what screwed up this nation.  

Your Poli Sci 101 professor lied to you, kid.  You've got a screwed-up notion of what the GOP is all about.  It isn't about rubber-stamping Democrat policies, boy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

Yep, barely sentient.


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, barely sentient.



Leftists sure do like to dehumanize their opponents, don't they?

I know you're a sentient human being, Jake.  I just think you're wrong.  And you can't handle that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 23, 2011)

once again, daveman, you are projecting your far far far right fears on others.  Really, tell us what you are afraid of?  Majority politics?


----------



## daveman (Jan 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> once again, daveman, you are projecting your far far far right fears on others.  Really, tell us what you are afraid of?  Majority politics?



So...I call you a human being (after you call me barely sentient), and I'M projecting?  

Kid, you're flailing.  Badly.  Leftists do that a lot:  Throw shit randomly to see what sticks.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > The TEA Parties takes its moniker from an historic event. One about taxes. Can you grasp that concept... the similarities between the original event and the current issue?
> ...



Sorry, but deliberate ignorance is inexcusable, so your confusion is your fault and your problem.

There's a big difference between drawing an analogy to a historical event and "invoking the names of national heroes".  No one has to say, "Thomas Jefferson (or George Washington, Ben Franklin, whoever) would think and believe THIS" in order to say, "I feel like we are in the same situation that sparked the Boston Tea Party".  I realize that the left would LOVE to block anyone from learning and referring to history, so that they would be free to repeat it at will, but it's just not going to work.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 23, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's a big difference between drawing an analogy to a historical event and "invoking the names of national heroes".



No, there really isn't. But the Whiskey rebels and their adoring fans are free to invoke whoever they wish to justify their rhetoric.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Clearly, you need to, if you think they all had the same point of view.



Sarah G said:


> There's a really good book called John Adams by David McCullough.  Historical and factual.  There's also an HBO miniseries they show every July 4th.
> 
> Learn something.



I love it.  "We know their point of view, because there are a whole bunch of people who never met them who claim to know their point of view."

Yes, we all DEFINITELY need to "learn something", so that - like you - we can run around thinking that HBO is now a scholarly historical reference.  

I could sort of respect this if you had referred us to "The Federalist Papers" or something like that, but HBO?!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > And.... before you talk about taxes not going up.... I would refer you  to the list of taxes in the new Health Care bill.
> ...



When did the First Amendment get changed to require people to get YOUR agreement and approval of their grievances before they're allowed to petition the government for redress?

Or, to put it another way, who the fuck asked you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> One thing's for sure - In their day, if they were advocating for the wealthy (eg Madison), they made no bones about the fact that they were advocating for the wealthy.
> 
> If I had to venture a guess, I think at minimum they'd be rolling their eyes something fierce at average people tricked into voting against their self interests.



If I had to venture a guess, I think they'd be rolling their eyes at dipshits like you trying to tell other people what "their best interests" are, and assuming they're too goddamned stupid to decide that for themselves.

Here's a thought, you arrogant, elitist jackwagon:  maybe they weren't "tricked".  Maybe they just don't agree with your worldview.  Shockingly enough, people CAN decide honestly that you're full of shit.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 23, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> When did the First Amendment get changed to require people to get YOUR agreement and approval of their grievances before they're allowed to petition the government for redress?
> 
> Or, to put it another way, who the fuck asked you?



Sounds like somebody was getting mileage out of that FSA!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2011)

jillian said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



The main thing I like about her is that she never says anything YOU would approve of as "educated".  It is, after all, the most intelligent position to take:  opposite you.


----------



## Samson (Jan 23, 2011)

Sherry said:


> Eh, he just enjoys stirring the pot....he, and others, seem annoyed that they've yet to find that collective button to push and really rile up the TPM.



Precisely.

They keep trolling, throwing bombs, trying to get the attention of a very large segment of the population that doesn't give a damn what they think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > once again, daveman, you are projecting your far far far right fears on others.  Really, tell us what you are afraid of?  Majority politics?
> ...



I am sure some leftists flail as badly as you do.

Once again, you whine when you get what you try to give.

Remember to vote GOP next year.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 24, 2011)




----------



## daveman (Jan 24, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


No time for whining.  Too busy laughing at you.

Say, aren't you going to be late for the bus, kid?  Or is there no school today?


JakeStarkey said:


> Remember to vote GOP next year.


I will, unless they run some liberal Republican.  They helped us get in this mess.  They don't need to be rewarded...they need to be fired.  We need conservatives in office.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 24, 2011)

Lighten up everybody. That bit was funny. 

And... the founding fathers would probably have hated the TEA party, because the tea party is full of really, really unintelligent and overly emotional people with really bad ideas, mad at all the wrongs things and with absolutely no way to fix anything. I really hope the TEA party is joking, because they are a joke.


----------



## daveman (Jan 24, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> Lighten up everybody. That bit was funny.
> 
> And... the founding fathers would probably have hated the TEA party, because the tea party is full of really, really unintelligent and overly emotional people with really bad ideas, mad at all the wrongs things and with absolutely no way to fix anything. I really hope the TEA party is joking, because they are a joke.


Perhaps if you didn't get your views of the TEA Party handed to you from bitter, unfunny alleged comedians, you wouldn't be making such asinine statements.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 25, 2011)

California Girl said:


> You are welcome to agree with him. That doesn't make you - or him - right. I personally think the Founders would love the dissent of the TEA Partiers. They founded this country on dissent. They loved a good revolution, our Founders. Personally, I think some of them would love the TEAs, others would disagree with the TEAs. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to Maher's own stupidity) the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued. They threatened one another. They were passionate about this country. So are we. In that, we are all the same.


Isn't it foolhearty, at best, to believe that they would enjoy and love revolution and dissent for revolution and dissent's sake? The FF's wanted one thing and one thing only...freedom, specifically OF religion. In other words, they were more interested in believe and worshipping what they wanted and how they wanted or to believe in nothing at all. If it wasn't for religious persecution, you'd probably be living in Europe somewhere, and I'd probably be living in Africa somewhere...provided we would exist at all.



CrusaderFrank said:


> On the plane ride back, I caught of little of Ed Schultz's civility.
> 
> *I'm fairly certain the Left wants to start a Civil War*


The sky isn't falling Glenn Beck...relax.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2011)

The Founding Fathers had many interests in forming this country.  If religion had been first and foremost, it would have been listed first and mentioned more often.  Limited power of the rulers, decentralizing authority and liberty for all in all things were the goals.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 25, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> The Founding Fathers had many interests in forming this country.  If religion had been first and foremost, it would have been listed first and mentioned more often.  Limited power of the rulers, decentralizing authority and liberty for all in all things were the goals.



First Amendment - _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; _or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There it is, listed first.  Seems like our founding generation DID, in fact, consider it a rather important liberty.  Not their only concern, but clearly a big one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2011)

Specified only first in the Amendments.  Restrictions on religion do exist in the main body.  Art VI "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Freedom of religious value and private religion are protected.  However, clearly organized religion and public government are separated.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jan 25, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



His letters to his children state that he believed god created the world, then essentially left it up for us to rule (deism). But Jefferson was easily the most complicated founding father to figure out, for example he was against big government (yet he expanded the country more than any other president-doubling it). He thought all men should be equal-but owned slaves. Then decided some to set some of his slaves free-but not all of them. He's known as writing the Declaration-yet it was edited afterwards by the continental congress.

"Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

This clearly lays out his thoughts that church and state should be separated-and that the formation of the country (from his perspective) isn't based on religion.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 25, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers had many interests in forming this country.  If religion had been first and foremost, it would have been listed first and mentioned more often.  Limited power of the rulers, decentralizing authority and liberty for all in all things were the goals.
> ...



Note is was an amendment.  I certainly did not call it unimportant, in fact, I am very happy about its inclusion.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 25, 2011)

daveman said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Lighten up everybody. That bit was funny.
> ...



Asinine statements? How can you presume to know where I get my views of the TEA party? You can't, so don't.


----------



## daveman (Jan 25, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


Surely you don't think...errr, sorry...surely you don't _feel_ those are all your original ideas, do you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2011)

daveman emotes not thinks; thus we get the comments we do from him.


----------



## daveman (Jan 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman emotes not thinks; thus we get the comments we do from him.


You have me confused with one of your fellow leftists, boy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2011)

I am discussing you far righties.  The lefties remind me of you all the time.  I wonder if lefties and righties come from the same genetic pool.


----------



## daveman (Jan 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am discussing you far righties.  The lefties remind me of you all the time.  I wonder if lefties and righties come from the same genetic pool.


Given that you consider yourself a "mainstream Republican", your judgement is seriously flawed, boy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 25, 2011)

Considering that you don't recognize of what mainstream Republicans consists, I am not worried about that.  I do know that your political philosophy is not that of mainstream America.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 25, 2011)

Maher is a douche. I thought everyone already knew this.


----------



## daveman (Jan 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Considering that you don't recognize of what mainstream Republicans consists, I am not worried about that.  I do know that your political philosophy is not that of mainstream America.


Why are you still acting as if your opinion of conservatives matters?  You're a leftist.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 25, 2011)

Amanda said:


> Maher is a douche. I thought everyone already knew this.



How adorably narcissistic of you to think that because you believe something, it is widely held.

Maher is an american hero in my book. He is a real human being, not conservative or a liberal. 

He *gulp* thinks for himself... 

He *gulp* does not believe in the bible.... 

He *double gulp* does not follow those with power blindly.... 

I think Bill Maher has and continues to be an important person in our society, who has done of lot of good by showing us how to laugh at the absurdities in our political system, allowing us to step outside of what it sold to us by the establishment, and take a more objective look so we can make our own decisions, not those of our family, friends, community, or popular culture in general.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that you don't recognize of what mainstream Republicans consists, I am not worried about that.  I do know that your political philosophy is not that of mainstream America.
> ...



Nope.  Your right wing agenda of reactionary politics makes even the mainstream GOP lefty to you.  That simply shows how far to the right you are.


----------



## daveman (Jan 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Not the mainstream GOP, Jake (although they've been sliding leftward for a couple of decades).

YOU.  You're a leftist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


  Nope.  You are a far right reactionary who thinks Goldwater today would be a lefty.  You are not fooling anyone, daveman.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 26, 2011)

Reactionaries really crack me up.

LOL!!!


----------



## daveman (Jan 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Wrong.  Goldwater had it right.  You're nowhere near Goldwater, Obama Boi.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 26, 2011)

You are not even GOP, daveman, so your opinion is your own, and worthless.

daveman engages regularly in a Straw Man Fallacy when he get make regular, objective comments of power.  

_Description of Straw Man   The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 

Person A has position X. 
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 
Person B attacks position Y. 
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. 

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person._ 

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/entry.php/114-Learn-about-the-Straw-Man-Fallacy


----------



## daveman (Jan 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not even GOP, daveman, so your opinion is your own, and worthless.
> 
> daveman engages regularly in a Straw Man Fallacy when he get make regular, objective comments of power.
> 
> ...


I'm a registered Republican, kid.  So the rest of your post after your ludicrous statement can safely be discarded as meaningless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2011)

No, you are not.  Your opinion about Repubican politics is meaningless.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Considering that you don't recognize of what mainstream Republicans consists, I am not worried about that.  I do know that your political philosophy is not that of mainstream America.



You have a way with words. 

Let me get out my red pen and correct your errors.


----------



## daveman (Jan 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you are not.  Your opinion about Repubican politics is meaningless.


I'm not a registered Republican?

Prove it, boy.  Good luck with that.  Oh, and you petulantly stamping your foot is NOT proof.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2011)

You made the claim that you are a registered Republican.  You can prove it by posting your registration.

By even more telling is your far right talking points.  Those are not mainstream Republicanism.

Mud, forgive me for typing quickly; I will engage my "mud grammar check" for you from now on.


----------



## logical4u (Jan 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > the Founders were individuals. They disagreed among themselves. They fought. They argued.
> ...



Benedict Arnold would have agreed with the democrats: we need someone to tell the masses what to do and how to think.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2011)

logical4u said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



That is more squirrely from you, logical4u, then usual.  Amazing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You made the claim that you are a registered Republican.  You can prove it by posting your registration.
> 
> By even more telling is your far right talking points.  Those are not mainstream Republicanism.
> 
> Mud, forgive me for typing quickly; I will engage my "mud grammar check" for you from now on.



Once again jakes talking about a subject he has no knowledge of being in the mainstream.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 27, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You made the claim that you are a registered Republican.  You can prove it by posting your registration.
> ...



The motherklucker is trying to say something.  Try again, kiddo, and try to make sense this time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Shall I repeat it one more time
Jake is talking about a subject he has no knowledge of  "the mainstream" You are as left of center as you can get without being like longhner.


----------



## daveman (Jan 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You made the claim that you are a registered Republican.  You can prove it by posting your registration.


Wrong.  You first made the claim that I wasn't.  So prove it, kid.

But somehow, you never get around to proving your claims.  You just say you did later.  


JakeStarkey said:


> By even more telling is your far right talking points.  Those are not mainstream Republicanism.


When did I ever claim to be a mainstream Republican?

Oh, yeah.  I didn't.   I'm a _conservative_ Republican.  Apparently, mainstream Republicans get all leg-tingly for Obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You made the claim that you are a registered Republican.  You can prove it by posting your registration.
> ...



Yep that just about sums it up completely


----------



## daveman (Jan 27, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Going by the "mainstream Republicans" here at USMB, yup.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If starkey is a mainstream republican he should not have a problem supporting George Bush or McCain or or any New England Republican. But does he? I haven't seen it maybe you have.


----------



## daveman (Jan 27, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I don't recall any discussion by Jake about them in particular, but I've never seen Jake support _any_ Republican.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 27, 2011)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well I mention those because if jake is mainstream reupblican heshould not hgave a problem supporting them, yet he does not support them.


----------



## daveman (Jan 27, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then despite his unwarranted arrogance and self-important puffery, he's fulla shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2011)

Look back, guys.  You are making strawman accusations.  Yes, I did support them on various points.  Yet you two criticize all the time.


----------



## daveman (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Look back, guys.  You are making strawman accusations.  Yes, I did support them on various points.  Yet you two criticize all the time.


Look, kid, it's really quite simple.  If you don't like people calling you a leftist, stop supporting leftist positions and politicians -- because "mainstream Republicans" don't do that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Look back, guys.  You are making strawman accusations.  Yes, I did support them on various points.  Yet you two criticize all the time.



Strwman? Simple question jake did you support John McCain in 2008? If not who did you support?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2011)

daveman and bigreb are not mainstream republicans.  daveman claims to be a registered one and bigreb is a "conservative."

Once again, daveman makes a claim he can't support, so that falls flat again.

You can't support your accusations, but you are welcome to try.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman and bigreb are not mainstream republicans.  daveman claims to be a registered one and bigreb is a "conservative."
> 
> Once again, daveman makes a claim he can't support, so that falls flat again.
> 
> You can't support your accusations, but you are welcome to try.



Simple question jake did you support John McCain in 2008? If not who did you support?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 28, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman and bigreb are not mainstream republicans.  daveman claims to be a registered one and bigreb is a "conservative."
> ...



I voted the McCain ticket, praying that if he were incapacitated as president that Sarah would do the decent thing and resign.  But then that would have meant Pelosi.  Yeah, I know.  Who did you support?


----------



## daveman (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman and bigreb are not mainstream republicans.  daveman claims to be a registered one and bigreb is a "conservative."
> 
> Once again, daveman makes a claim he can't support, so that falls flat again.
> 
> You can't support your accusations, but you are welcome to try.


Wrong, kid.  You first claimed I am not a Republican.

Prove it.  For once in your life, _prove it_.  Don't just prance around saying stuff is true simply because you say it is.  I  know you learned that from your college professors, but just because you're stupid enough to unquestioningly accept what they say doesn't mean the rest of us are.  

Dumbass kid.


----------



## daveman (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Who did you support in the primaries?


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jan 28, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman and bigreb are not mainstream republicans.  daveman claims to be a registered one and bigreb is a "conservative."
> ...



Prove that. You blast him for assuming (and rightfully so)-then turn around and do the same exact thing? Come on you know better than to do that, especially in the same post. This thread is turning into a big personal-who gives a flying fuck-"no I'm a REAL republican, "NO I'M A REAL REPUBLICAN!". Lame.


----------



## LaShaun (Jan 28, 2011)

"The founding fathers would have hated your guts"

    Reference to the founding fathers ideas of hating America or not would be totally irrelevant in todays society. The founding fathers have no contendancy or mindset on the change and metamorphisis this country has been through thus making their opinions I think irrelevant. Sure they may have started a ripple, yet many of their historical analyses and decisions were also based on Ignorance alone.

    By the Way I voted for *Obama.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I gave my support to Mcain after he made Sarah his running mate.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 28, 2011)

LaShaun said:


> "The founding fathers would have hated your guts"
> 
> Reference to the founding fathers ideas of hating America or not would be totally irrelevant in todays society. The founding fathers have no contendancy or mindset on the change and metamorphisis this country has been through thus making their opinions I think irrelevant. Sure they may have started a ripple, yet many of their historical analyses and decisions were also based on Ignorance alone.
> 
> By the Way I voted for *Obama.*



In cae you do not realize their opinions are still used to support the Constitution. Thats how we tdecide what the meaning of certain laws are. Such as the second Amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 28, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




You're new jake has a history around here this is why peope respon the way they do with him, he's the one to blame. Once you have been a few rounds with jokey then you will see exactly whats going on.


----------



## daveman (Jan 28, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Fair enough.  I can't prove it, so I retract.

See how easy that is, Jake?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



FYI, guys, there's a reason that I have Jake on ignore, and this sort of pointless, thread-killing, "You are, No, YOU are" kindergarten shit would be it.  He's never had anything meaningful to say that I can recall, and he inevitably drags the thread off onto an utterly irrelevant tangent like this so that no one can talk about the real topic.

Just chuck him and move on.  I promise you, he will never have a post which has you kicking yourself for missing it.  Never.


----------



## daveman (Jan 29, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


  Good advice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

You guys certainly validate Gandhi's statement.  That you have nothing the rest of us realize so easily.


----------



## daveman (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You guys certainly validate Gandhi's statement.  That you have nothing the rest of us realize so easily.



Kid, I served with Ghandi, I knew Ghandi, Ghandi was a friend of mine. Kid, you're no Ghandi.*



*For the humor-impaired left:  This is a joke -- much like Jake's claims to being a Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

You do not act like a Republican, daveman, far more like an agenda-driven reactionary activist trying to corrupt the party.  But you will get to vote for Romney, so rant and chant away.


----------



## daveman (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You do not act like a Republican, daveman, far more like an agenda-driven reactionary activist trying to corrupt the party.  But you will get to vote for Romney, so rant and chant away.


"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant -- it's that they know so much that isn't so."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You do not act like a Republican, daveman, far more like an agenda-driven reactionary activist trying to corrupt the party.  But you will get to vote for Romney, so rant and chant away.
> ...



Yes, your ignorance is showing, daveman.  Glad you understand that.

All of that aside, do you really think a Palin or Bachman candidacy can win.  I mean really?


----------



## elvis (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



In some respects, it'd be better to allow that ticket to run just as a sacrifice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Such a ticket would guarantee government-dominated health care reform as well as a cleansing of the GOP of reactionary activists to the far right.


----------



## daveman (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Now you're calling me a liberal?  What a stupid, stupid child you are.


JakeStarkey said:


> All of that aside, do you really think a Palin or Bachman candidacy can win.  I mean really?


Hey, dumbass, where did I ever voice support for a Palin or Bachman candidacy?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Touchy, touchy, my little reactionary agenda-driven activist, touchy, touchy. 

I am curious if you think a Palin or Bachman ticket can win?  I don't, but lot of folks far to the right here seem to think differently.  Where are you on it?


----------



## LaShaun (Jan 29, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LaShaun said:
> 
> 
> > "The founding fathers would have hated your guts"
> ...




Indeed MANY of their opinions are still used, however, many of their opinions have also been reinterpretated, scratched out, and dismissed as well. Lets not pretend as If the founding founders decisions were "Holier than thou", apparently, they made some very bad decisions also.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 29, 2011)

LaShaun said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > LaShaun said:
> ...



wrong on everything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

Yes, you are wrong on everthing, bigreb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you are wrong on everthing, bigreb.



Really? Point them out


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

Once you point on LaShaun's errors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Once you point on LaShaun's errors.



If I wanted to do that I would have done it when I replied, I just don't feel like it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 29, 2011)

Point out LaShaun's errors, bigreb, or be a hypocrite.  Can't do it, can you, hypocrite?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Point out LaShaun's errors, bigreb, or be a hypocrite.  Can't do it, can you, hypocrite?



Pot meet kettle, fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2011)

Calling you for what you do to others.  Answer LaShaun, stop being a hypocrite, and we can go from there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Calling you for what you do to others.  Answer LaShaun, stop being a hypocrite, and we can go from there.



pot meet kettle? Thios is exactly how you do it jake, don't like it do you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2011)

I am doing to you what you try doing to others.  Don't like it, do you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am doing to you what you try doing to others.  Don't like it, do you?



No jake you are the worse for not responding to a post, and when you do you never seem to answer directly you alway side to the left. And I am not the only one that has pointed that out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 30, 2011)

I have always appropriately answered your charges when you support them with evidence.

A series of questions do not constitute a charge and never will.

That is what you want to do, make a prompt without support.

I am never going to let you get away with that nonsense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I have always appropriately answered your charges when you support them with evidence.
> 
> A series of questions do not constitute a charge and never will.
> 
> ...





> I have always appropriately answered your charges when you support them with evidence.



HORSESHIT. plain and simple HORSESHIT.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

LaShaun said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > LaShaun said:
> ...



First of all, the word is "reinterpreted".  Second, it's not a matter of the Founding Fathers' opinions being "holy" at all.  Certain of their opinions are the LAW, which means you don't just get to blow them off and ignore them because you decide they're "bad".  And if one wishes, for some odd notion, to understand the law and its purpose because . . . I don't know, one might take a wild hair up the ass and decide to actually OBEY the laws or something, it is then useful to look at what those who wrote that law intended by it.  Third, I'd like to know what "bad decisions" you think the Founding Fathers made.


----------

