# Tea Party v. Democrat Party



## Flanders (Jul 9, 2014)

*I know where the Divine Sarah is coming from:*

​
*Personally, I have been against removing Taqiyya the Liar going all the back to 2009 when impeachment talk focused on the question of his ineligibility. The things he has done for illegal immigration probably heads the list of reasons to impeach him these days. Illegal immigration changes nothing as far as I&#8217;m concerned. Briefly, this is why I would not like to see him removed:  

In the past three or four years I&#8217;ve said &#8220;Let him stay in office, then sit back and watch contempt for him and everything he stands for grow.&#8221; That is exactly what happened. The wave of children being used as political pawns can only accelerate the contempt the liar  deserves. The ruthlessness built into Taqiyya&#8217;s open-borders policy is every bit as merciless as is the cruelty that is built into the Affordable Care Act.

I get Sarah&#8217;s legitimate position, and I think I get John Boehner&#8217;s, too.*



> Boehner disagrees with Palin on impeaching Obama
> By Ed O'Keefe July 9 at 11:17 AM
> 
> Boehner disagrees with Palin on impeaching Obama - The Washington Post



*Boehner knows there is not a chance Taqiyya will be removed so long as Democrats control the Senate; anything less than removal will work for the Democrats. The media will use the same tactics defending him that they used defending Bill Clinton; nevertheless, there is a way to do it. Here&#8217;s my impeachment suggestion:

Rather than impeach Taqiyya the Liar when Republicans take the Senate in November &#8212;&#8212; time the Senate trial for January 2017. He&#8217;s not going to jail anyway, but by impeaching him at the very last minute he loses his pension, his Secret Service bodyguards, and so on while Democrats benefit nothing. Hell, the Senate trial can be finely tuned so that dirt bag Biden does not get sworn in.

NOTE: Postponing the impeachment will give the Internet more than two years to mute mainstream media  defense tactics.   

Naturally, a lot depends on more Tea Party conservatives in the Senate and House bringing Karl Rove&#8217;s Republicans along.  

Obviously Taqiyya&#8217;s devoted followers  are going to be upset no matter when it is done. They will never vote for a Tea Party conservative or a Republican anyway.  Bottom line: Rub their noses in it.

That brings me to the Tea Party versus the Democrat party.  Tea Partiers fighting for sovereignty was an obscure aspect of the ideological conflict before the Democrat party-engineered invasion.  The huge invasion of illegal aliens clearly shows that Tea Partiers are fighting for America&#8217;s sovereignty. Indeed, Democrats can take a bow for bringing home the importance of America&#8217;s sovereignty. I can think of no other Democrat betrayal that could have moved the loss of sovereignty up to the most serious threat as effectively as did the invasion. I put it on par with the way most Americans viewed Muslim fundamentalists before 9-11-2001. It took an attack on American soil for Americans to recognize the seriousness of the jihadist threat. The invasion of illegal aliens is no less of an attack.   

In addition to sovereignty Tea Partiers fight for the Constitution, and for individual liberties that can only be realized under a severely limited government. Democrats are the exact opposite. That always made me question why over 90 percent of black Americans consistently vote for Democrats. I will not believe that black Americans hate Tea Party values to the point of helping Democrats destroy the country. This is the closest I&#8217;ve ever come to a satisfactory explanation:  

Black Americans have a love affair with the federal government not the Democrat party. The romance began before the Civil War. They never got over it. The Civil Rights Movement intensified the passion, and continues to this day.  Blacks see the federal government as their savior. It&#8217;s more than a learned response, it is in their genetic code. To black Americans the Democrat party is the federal government. Black Americans will vote for the Democrats for as long as Democrats are seen as the federal government. *


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jul 9, 2014)

Flanders said:


> *Briefly, this is why I would not like to see him removed:
> *



Thank you for your undying support of President Obama.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 10, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> Thank you for your undying support of President Obama.



*To LiberalMedia: And thank you for supporting my reason:*



Flanders said:


> Let him stay in office, then sit back and watch contempt for him and everything he stands for grow. That is exactly what happened.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 10, 2014)

Witness the right wing mind...if there ever was a president who was guilty of impeachable offenses, it was GW Bush. But when Bush was in office, Flanders and the rest of the right wing turds were licking the ass of the president.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 10, 2014)

There is no 'tea party.'


----------



## S.J. (Jul 10, 2014)

There won't be an impeachment but there WILL be a revolution.  The electoral process has been corrupted, which will eventually lead to it being the only option.


----------



## Crystalclear (Jul 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no 'tea party.'




There is, only not as a real political party.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 10, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Witness the right wing mind...if there ever was a president who was guilty of impeachable offenses, it was GW Bush. But when Bush was in office, Flanders and the rest of the right wing turds were licking the ass of the president.



*To Bfgrn: Instead of shooting your mouth off research my messages if you want to know what I think about Bush the Younger.* 



Crystalclear said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no 'tea party.'
> ...



*To Crystalclear: Tea Partiers within the Republican party are the nucleus for a successful splinter party. Anger at the federal governments long list of failures and scandals indicates that an independent Tea Party will draw Americans from the two major parties. *



> *splinter party* (_noun_)
> _plural _- *splinter parties*
> 
> A political party formed by members of an existing one whose views or policies differ from those of the majority.



*NOTE: Ross Perot (not the best candidate in the world) running as an Independent got over 18 percent of the vote in 1992 while anger at the federal government was nowhere near todays outright hatred. Also note that conservative Tea Partiers are slowly accumulating seats in Congress rather than pinning their hopes on the presidency.    
*


----------



## guno (Jul 10, 2014)

LiberalMedia said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> > *Briefly, this is why I would not like to see him removed:
> ...



(Ned) Flanders is a special case isn't he


----------



## Crystalclear (Jul 10, 2014)

The Tea Party is a political movement, but not a political party like the Democrats, GOP and 3rd parties from which you can elect members.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 10, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> The Tea Party is a political movement, but not a political party like the Democrats, GOP and 3rd parties from which you can elect members.



*To Crystalclear: At what point does the Tea Party Movement become mainstream? Answer: Tea Party candidates winning elections as Republicans proves it is has outgrown the movement phase. 

See the OP in this thread for another take: *



> Tea Party Theme Song - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*
Incidentally, Hispanics are going down the same road black Americans traveled: *



Flanders said:


> Black Americans have a love affair with the federal government not the Democrat party. The romance began before the Civil War. They never got over it. The Civil Rights Movement intensified the passion, and continues to this day.  Blacks see the federal government as their savior. Its more than a learned response, it is in their genetic code. To black Americans the Democrat party is the federal government. Black Americans will vote for the Democrats for as long as Democrats are seen as the federal government.



*Taqiyya the Liar, acting for the federal government not the American people, knows what he is doing. This video shows that the federal government is more important to average rank & file Hispanics than is the law, Americas sovereignty, the Constitution, or anything else so long as they get their way at everybody elses expense:* 

​


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 10, 2014)

To teabagger Flanders (pronounced 'flounder')

The teabaggers represent not a "nucleus for a successful splinter party", they represent a nuclear meltdown of America. They represent the very WORST of right wing extremism.

Here is what flounder and his teabagger cohorts actually look like...






and here is what they would bring to America...

Tea Party Brings Environmental Meltdown to America

For Tea Party zealots it is impossible to utter, hear, read or write the words "freedom" and "liberty" too many times. And, of course, to them, the antithesis of freedom and liberty is the federal government, which they swear they will "take back."

For them, taking back the government means restoring the freedom to not be able to afford health care, restoring the freedom to be unemployed without any unemployment insurance, restoring the freedom to lose your home to mortgage fraud and your pension to criminal Wall Street bankers. That doesn't sound much like a "Party" to me; that sounds more like a nightmare.

Even though many of their devotees don't realize it themselves, what the Tea Party Nightmare is actually selling is not freedom for you, but more freedom for corporate America to deny your freedom. And, this year, no freedom is more important to the Tea Party Nightmare than the freedom for corporations to make you sick by polluting our air and water. Every Republican presidential candidate and virtually every Republican Congressperson has joined the Tea Party Nightmare chorus in ranting against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and not just the EPA regulating greenhouse gases, but against everything the EPA does. Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party Nightmare's charmingly oblivious and truly frightening presidential pinup girl, proudly wants to abolish the EPA. Not to be out done, pistol packin' Rick Perry sounds like he wants to torture everyone who works there and shoot it with his gun before he abolishes it.

The 1979 movie "China Syndrome" brought to life the danger of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Within weeks, the first of real-life meltdowns occurred at Three Mile Island, then Chernobyl, then Fukushima. China is now in total environmental "meltdown," a new version of the China Syndrome if you will. With a political posture smothered in irony, the party that worships freedom wants the US to mimic China, the most repressive of major governments, in turning this country into a corporate-caused environmental meltdown. Call it the Tea Party Nightmare version of the China Syndrome.

 Americans do not support eviscerating the EPA. Even those who don't appreciate the connection between their health and the environment still want it protected. In fact, numerous polls taken even recently, in the midst of our moribund economy, show that people don't think the environment has to be sacrificed for economic recovery; they don't want environmental regulations watered down and are even willing to pay more out of their pockets for cleaner energy.

But for the Republican/Tea Party Nightmare, what the people want is of little concern. Remember, that freedom thing is for corporations only, and they are intent on bringing the China Syndrome to America.

more

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus


----------



## Ripple (Jul 19, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Witness the right wing mind...if there ever was a president who was guilty of impeachable offenses, it was G.W. Bush. But when Bush was in office, Flanders and the rest of the right wing turds were licking the ass of the president.



The left still cannot bring itself to admit that THEY agreed to Bush going into Iraq at every point where the vote was taken. In fact once it appeared that they (the Left) were at odds with the American people and voted not to invade they asked for another vote to be taken so that they would not appear to be against the War. Guess what the Vote was 99 -1  to invade after that.

The problem with your position here is that you make stupid statements looking back . Obama does blatant stupid thing in real time that stimulates talk of impeachment.

Silly liberals ,politics is for grownups.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 19, 2014)

Ripple said:


> The left still cannot bring itself to admit that THEY agreed to Bush going into Iraq at every point where the vote was taken. In fact once it appeared that they (the Left) were at odds with the American people and voted not to invade they asked for another vote to be taken so that they would not appear to be against the War. Guess what the Vote was 99 -1  to invade after that.
> 
> The problem with your position here is that you make stupid statements looking back . Obama does blatant stupid thing in real time that stimulates talk of impeachment.
> 
> Silly liberals ,politics is for grownups.



*To Ripple: How right you are. And they all voted for it because they thought Bush was going to turn it over to the United Nations for final approval (UN inspectors etc.).  When Bush invaded unilaterally they all raised the white flag and began preaching cut and run. Hence, &#8220;I voted for it before I was against it.&#8221; 
*


----------



## Ripple (Jul 19, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no 'tea party.'
> ...



The lefts failing effort to castigate a grass roots movement of average American's into something vile, stems from the fact that common sense is deemed a social dysfunction.
The tea party rises up when they feel the country is in peril. Then they put down their signs and go home.

I don't know, but that just seems the way things aught to be. Too bad we cannot force Congress to spend more time in their districts.


----------



## Votto (Jul 19, 2014)

Impeachment?  No way.

It's called taking out an insurance policy.

Obama is bullet proof.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 19, 2014)

Sarah Putin is a pinhead!
The Tea Bag Brotherhood are domestic terrorists.


----------



## Votto (Jul 19, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Sarah Putin is a pinhead!
> The Tea Bag Brotherhood are domestic terrorists.




Agreed.  Talking about balancing budgets, closing the border, and reducing the scope and power of a Congress with only a 10% approval rating is nothing short of radical extremism.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 19, 2014)

S.J. said:


> There won't be an impeachment but there WILL be a revolution.  The electoral process has been corrupted, which will eventually lead to it being the only option.



There will not be a revolution, there may be a riot or two by a right wing mob, but I doubt that too.  You see the 'brave' armchair generals on the far right fringe who post on this forum are all hat and no cattle.  That they believe violence is the only solution puts them in the class of terrorists in words, but not in deed.  All but the most insane lack the guts to put themselves in harms way.


----------



## Ibentoken (Jul 19, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > There won't be an impeachment but there WILL be a revolution.  The electoral process has been corrupted, which will eventually lead to it being the only option.
> ...



If you think American citizens who are demanding accountability are cowards is good.  You keep thinking that.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2014)

Ripple said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Witness the right wing mind...if there ever was a president who was guilty of impeachable offenses, it was G.W. Bush. But when Bush was in office, Flanders and the rest of the right wing turds were licking the ass of the president.
> ...



The ONLY opposition to Bush's Hirohito sneak attack on a sovereign nation came from liberals. You right wing scum CHEERED as innocent Iraqi men women and children were being incinerated by our war machine and women and children being tortured and raped at Abu Ghraib. 

I supported Bush going after bin Laden and the people who attacked us on 9/11. But he lost my support the minute he started lying about Iraq.


----------



## Votto (Jul 19, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Ripple said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Liberals supported Obama after he criticized Bush for going to war in Iraq, and then Liberals supported Obama when going to war in other places around the globe.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 20, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Rather than impeach Taqiyya the Liar when Republicans take the Senate in November  time the Senate trial for January 2017. Hes not going to jail anyway, but by impeaching him at the very last minute he loses his pension, his Secret Service bodyguards, and so on while Democrats benefit nothing. Hell, the Senate trial can be finely tuned so that dirt bag Biden does not get sworn in.



*David Limbaugh does not go as far as do I but he comes close. His reasoning for impeaching Taqiyya the Liar is impeccable, but I cannot see when he would do it if not at the last minute as I suggest: * 



> I don't think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama right now, but I also don't think that considering the idea is "crazy talk."
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> Though it may not be the opportune time for impeachment, I am very concerned about what Obama's unchecked usurpations of power have done to the balance of power in the federal government and the overall integrity of the Constitution and the rule of law.
> ...


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 22, 2014)

Flanders said:


> Tea Partiers fighting for sovereignty was an obscure aspect of the ideological conflict before the Democrat party-engineered invasion.  The huge invasion of illegal aliens clearly shows that Tea Partiers are fighting for Americas sovereignty. Indeed, Democrats can take a bow for bringing home the importance of Americas sovereignty.
> [/B]



So... America didn't have sovereignty before 1875?


----------



## g4racer (Jul 22, 2014)

When they have their own candidates and $upport them to the extent they are doing you can call it a party.  I don't know if you have been keeping up with elections; but the battles between the GOP and Tea Party are on the same level as GOP and Dems.
The reason the Tea Party refuses to admit they are a separate party is that they still need the GOP more than the GOP needs them.


----------



## Crystalclear (Jul 22, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Sarah Putin is a pinhead!
> The Tea Bag Brotherhood are domestic terrorists.




Promoting less government, more state rights, less regulation and better-secured borders is certainly not terrorism


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 22, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah Putin is a pinhead!
> ...



And it certainly is not the Tea Bag Brotherhood either!


----------



## Flanders (Jul 22, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> So... America didn't have sovereignty before 1875?



*To Agit8r: I do not get your point! 

In any event no group in 1875 had the wealth and political influence to surrender Americas independence to a global government.  The fight for sovereignty that I am talking about began in earnest in 1945. See #10 permalink in this thread:*



> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/327079-conscription-liberal-style.html



*The seeds were planted early in the 20th century. As bad as Mussolini was he was right about this:* 



> We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores. _Benito Mussolini_ (18831945)



*That quote is from his first speech as a member of parliament.  He was addressing the Socialists in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. June 21, 1921. 

Contemporary Socialists, ever mindful of Mussolinis criticism, have made his argument meaningless by destroying national boundaries.  Serendipitously, Socialists now realize that mass migrations will serve global government much better than was fully understood in 1921.    

Fascism was a reaction to Communism in Mussolinis time.  It was not the Treaty of Versailles that caused WWII as so many believe, or as so many who know better teach others to believe.  The need to combat Communism by establishing another totalitarian form of government led to Hitler and WWII.  It was the wrong choice then as it is now.  Socialism/Communism must be defeated, but it must be beaten by limited representative government or freedom will have won nothing. 

If you examine what Islamists are saying they, too, are preaching totalitarian government; albeit a theocratic absolutism.  Everyone who enjoys individual liberty must stop Socialists from finally authenticating their worldwide totalitarian dream on the pretext of fighting Islamist terrorism.  American individual liberties are being threatened by Islamists from without and by Socialists from within.  Both must be defeated.  

The next decade or so will be the most dangerous period in this countrys history.  Much more so than during the Cold War because then the enemy had the same face at home and abroad.  Also, throughout the Cold War years the enemies within had to further their agenda with a certain amount of caution lest they expose themselves beyond the mainstream medias ability to cover for them.  Now they are in a position to be openly against Islamic fundamentalists in a way that their loyalty to Soviet Communism never allowed.

You can be sure that even now American Socialists are planning their moves while the country is distracted by terrorists.  One very obvious move is to increase the number of unnecessary federal and state employees at every opportunity.  The subtle moves will take place with legislation, increased bureaucratic powers, unfunded judicial mandates, etc.      

It all comes down this way:  Either Socialism/Communism is openly challenged and beaten now, after more than a century of incremental Communism, or representative government will dissolve for centuries  possibly forever.  Individual freedoms and property Rights guaranteed in a form of limited representative government are incompatible with Socialism/Communism; one must survive, one must disappear.*



g4racer said:


> The reason the Tea Party refuses to admit they are a separate party is that they still need the GOP more than the GOP needs them.



*To g4racer: See this thread:* 



> Tea Party Theme Song - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Crystalclear (Jul 25, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, they are indeed not the Tea Bag Brotherhood either


----------



## Flanders (Jul 26, 2014)

*I believe this:* 



> &#8220;He wants us to impeach him now,&#8221; Stockman theorized, &#8220;before the midterm election because his senior advisors believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat. Evidently Obama believes impeachment could motivate the Democratic Party base to come out and vote.&#8221;
> 
> Congressman at border: 'Obama begging to be impeached'
> Witnesses shocking procedures for handling illegal immigrants
> ...



*He definitely wants a Senate trial before November where acquittal is a dead certainty. That is why this suggestion makes more sense than ever:* 



Flanders said:


> Rather than impeach Taqiyya the Liar when Republicans take the Senate in November &#8212;&#8212; time the Senate trial for January 2017. He&#8217;s not going to jail anyway, but by impeaching him at the very last minute he loses his pension, his Secret Service bodyguards, and so on while Democrats benefit nothing. Hell, the Senate trial can be finely tuned so that dirt bag Biden does not get sworn in.


----------

