Is Every Tea Party Member Nuts???

[Billo_Really]

Wiki? You're holding up an editable, source as the standard for a source? I'm sorry... that just not factually accurate. You know how I know that? Because my parents have been attending TEA Parties since 2007. And they aren't the only ones.... they went with their hispanic friends... and took their black friends, and my black Muslim family attend TEA Parties.... Your view of the TEA parties comes from an agenda driven media. Mine comes from personal experience. Your an ass for accepting what the media tell you - and you're a hack for accepting photoshopped pictures and bullshit as 'evidence'. Continue to accept the lies you're told. Fool.

Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttal's.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, clearly, that would be you... with the photoshopped 'evidence'. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your statement is a perfect example of "bagger" lunacy.

I say what I saw in one of their phoney protests and you claim "photo-shopped evidence".

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

 

[California Girl]

Wiki? You're holding up an editable, source as the standard for a source? I'm sorry... that just not factually accurate. You know how I know that? Because my parents have been attending TEA Parties since 2007. And they aren't the only ones.... they went with their hispanic friends... and took their black friends, and my black Muslim family attend TEA Parties.... Your view of the TEA parties comes from an agenda driven media. Mine comes from personal experience. Your an ass for accepting what the media tell you - and you're a hack for accepting photoshopped pictures and bullshit as 'evidence'. Continue to accept the lies you're told. Fool.

Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttal's.

Again... for the slow witted:

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[75] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated politics for the next two years, culminating in a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely awarded seats in the United States House of Representatives.

Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^^ That was the start of the TEA Party. Not your bullshit. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

 

[California Girl]

No, clearly, that would be you... with the photoshopped 'evidence'. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your statement is a perfect example of "bagger" lunacy.

I say what I saw in one of their phoney protests and you claim "photo-shopped evidence".

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

I went to private school... but not by bus. We walked to school. You know what I learned there? Critical thought. To 'question, with boldness'. And I do. Which is why I interrogate what I read, what is presented as 'evidence'... even if it's wiki. In that, we differ. I question, you accept... as long as the 'evidence' supports your pre-conceived idea. Hack.

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^ That was the start of the TEA Party. Not your bullshit. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your own source admits they "grew into" the "bagger nation"; they didn't start as "baggers" and they have nothing to do with the original Boston Tea Party.

 

[Samson]

No, clearly, that would be you... with the photoshopped 'evidence'. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your statement is a perfect example of "bagger" lunacy.

I say what I saw in one of their phoney protests and you claim "photo-shopped evidence".

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

I went to private school... but not by bus. We walked to school. You know what I learned there? Critical thought. To 'question, with boldness'. And I do. Which is why I interrogate what I read, what is presented as 'evidence'... even if it's wiki. In that, we differ. I question, you accept... as long as the 'evidence' supports your pre-conceived idea. Hack.

Not to change the subject, but did you wear a uniform....maybe a white blouse and plaid skirt?



More importantly, do you still have it?

 

[Billo_Really]

I went to private school... but not by bus. We walked to school. You know what I learned there? Critical thought. To 'question, with boldness'. And I do. Which is why I interrogate what I read, what is presented as 'evidence'... even if it's wiki. In that, we differ. I question, you accept... as long as the 'evidence' supports your pre-conceived idea. Hack.

"I question, you accept"

That is not, critical thought.

That is pontificating.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not to change the subject, but did you wear a uniform....maybe a white blouse and plaid skirt?



More importantly, do you still have it?

I went to Catholic school and just loved those salt 'n pepper skirts.

In 6th grade, girls had coodies; in 7th grade, it became, "What was that?"

 

[California Girl]

Your statement is a perfect example of "bagger" lunacy.

I say what I saw in one of their phoney protests and you claim "photo-shopped evidence".

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

I went to private school... but not by bus. We walked to school. You know what I learned there? Critical thought. To 'question, with boldness'. And I do. Which is why I interrogate what I read, what is presented as 'evidence'... even if it's wiki. In that, we differ. I question, you accept... as long as the 'evidence' supports your pre-conceived idea. Hack.

Not to change the subject, but did you wear a uniform....maybe a white blouse and plaid skirt?



More importantly, do you still have it?

Yes, I did. And, yea, it's at my parents place.

 

[California Girl]

I went to private school... but not by bus. We walked to school. You know what I learned there? Critical thought. To 'question, with boldness'. And I do. Which is why I interrogate what I read, what is presented as 'evidence'... even if it's wiki. In that, we differ. I question, you accept... as long as the 'evidence' supports your pre-conceived idea. Hack.

"I question, you accept"

That is not, critical thought.

That is pontificating.

You show no sign of questioning your sources. That's accepting.

I question every source. That's critical thought.

That is fact.

 

[Billo_Really]

You show no sign of questioning your sources. That's accepting.

I question every source. That's critical thought.

That is fact.

That's because I've already done it, before I posted.

Ya know, if you're going to "question a source", you should have evidence to the contrary, in order to prove your "objection" was not frivolous.

 

[Buford]

You show no sign of questioning your sources. That's accepting.

I question every source. That's critical thought.

That is fact.

That's because I've already done it, before I posted.

Ya know, if you're going to "question a source", you should have evidence to the contrary, in order to prove your "objection" was not frivolous.

College professors and even the founder of wikipedia have stated that the site is not to be listed as a primary source since it can be edited. Anyone who still uses wikipedia as a primary source can't be taken seriously. Lefties love it because they can edit it to say whatever they want it to.

 

[Billo_Really]

College professors and even the founder of wikipedia have stated that the site is not to listed as a primary source since it can be edited. Anyone who still uses wikipedia as a primary source can't be taken seriously. Lefties love it because they can edit it to say whatever they want it to.

And basing the truth or falsehood of a claim soley on the source from which it came, is not a valid objection.

 

[California Girl]

You show no sign of questioning your sources. That's accepting.

I question every source. That's critical thought.

That is fact.

That's because I've already done it, before I posted.

Ya know, if you're going to "question a source", you should have evidence to the contrary, in order to prove your "objection" was not frivolous.

You posted 'wiki' as evidence to support your claim that the TEAs started in 2009. I posted 'wiki' to support mine that they started before 2007. Since wiki supports both, which of us is accurate? I would say mine, because the evidence is factually accurate... unlike yours.

 

[California Girl]

College professors and even the founder of wikipedia have stated that the site is not to listed as a primary source since it can be edited. Anyone who still uses wikipedia as a primary source can't be taken seriously. Lefties love it because they can edit it to say whatever they want it to.

And basing the truth or falsehood of a claim soley on the source from which it came, is not a valid objection.

Which I don't. But you do.

 

[California Girl]

^^^ That was the start of the TEA Party. Not your bullshit. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your own source admits they "grew into" the "bagger nation"; they didn't start as "baggers" and they have nothing to do with the original Boston Tea Party.

The point of my quoting wiki was to show you that wiki can support whatever you want it to. Twit. The fact remains that the TEAs started before 2009, which is what you claimed. Using your own standard of source, I proved you wrong.

I personally find your hatred of the TEA Parties to be based on media fed drivel. Bullshit. Mushrooms.

 

[Buford]

College professors and even the founder of wikipedia have stated that the site is not to listed as a primary source since it can be edited. Anyone who still uses wikipedia as a primary source can't be taken seriously. Lefties love it because they can edit it to say whatever they want it to.

And basing the truth or falsehood of a claim soley on the source from which it came, is not a valid objection.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Wise up. If you want to be taken seriously then find secure sources.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's funny because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I just told you.

You need to get your game up!

No, clearly, that would be you... with the photoshopped 'evidence'. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2006, a libertarian political party called the "Boston Tea Party" was founded. In 2007, the Ron Paul "Tea Party" money bomb, held on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, broke the one-day fund-raising record by raising $6.04 million in 24 hours.[75] Subsequently, these fund-raising "Tea parties" grew into the Tea Party movement, which dominated politics for the next two years, culminating in a voter victory for the Republicans in 2010 who were widely awarded seats in the United States House of Representatives.

^^^^ That's where the TEA Party that you know of started.

Idiot... and I used wiki.

Or
About | Boston Tea Party of Indiana

The Boston Tea Party was founded by Tom Knapp in 2006 following a Libertarian National Convention that disappointed Knapp and many other libertarians. The platform of the party is as follows:

 

[Billo_Really]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Wise up. If you want to be taken seriously then find secure sources.

If you want to object, you need a source of your own.

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^ That was the start of the TEA Party. Not your bullshit. Keep buying the bullshit... mushroom.

Your own source admits they "grew into" the "bagger nation"; they didn't start as "baggers" and they have nothing to do with the original Boston Tea Party.

The point of my quoting wiki was to show you that wiki can support whatever you want it to. Twit. The fact remains that the TEAs started before 2009, which is what you claimed. Using your own standard of source, I proved you wrong.

I personally find your hatred of the TEA Parties to be based on media fed drivel. Bullshit. Mushrooms.

My personal hatred of the "bagger nation", stems from what I have personally seen.