What Happened To All Those Tea Party Killers?

[JakeStarkey]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?

The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

 

[EriktheRed]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?

The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

you sure this is the right thread for that?

 

[FA_Q2]

Here they are

except when they do it, you disavow any link to the tea party so no one or any action will ever be linked to the Tea Party by the OP

Put the bong down.

See?

How about you bother to make the connection then. The single article posted in this thread does not connect them with the tea party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

you sure this is the right thread for that?

If Emily asked the question, then I will answer it. She, and no one, is not penalized because LGBT can marry. Quit crying, people.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here they are

except when they do it, you disavow any link to the tea party so no one or any action will ever be linked to the Tea Party by the OP

Put the bong down.

See?

How about you bother to make the connection then. The single article posted in this thread does not connect them with the tea party.

Actually, from all of the sources I looked up about them, they're not associated with the Tea Party. They sure did love that Gadsen flag, though.

 

[EriktheRed]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

you sure this is the right thread for that?

If Emily asked the question, then I will answer it. She, and no one, is penalized because LGBT can marry. Quit crying, people.

Oh, ok, I get it.

You should include the post you're answering, though. Here, I'll do it for you:

The ACA mandates (and now this gay marriage push
to penalize people for beliefs) are such living nightmares,
the other fears are outshadowed in comparison!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, good show, Jenkins. You are training well, jolly well.

 

[S.J.]

Here they are

except when they do it, you disavow any link to the tea party so no one or any action will ever be linked to the Tea Party by the OP

Put the bong down.

See?

See what? You posted a random picture with no names and a comment that makes no sense. How do expect me to answer it, dumb shit?

He probably didn't think he had to, since it was pretty big news last year. But then guys like you exist in your own little wingnut bubble, so maybe you didn't catch it when it happened:

Las Vegas cop-killing couple left swastika-stamped manifesto on slain officer's body

So where is your proof they were Tea Party members? Oh, you don't NEED any, just an accusation will do.

 

[S.J.]

The Tea Party wasn't even in existence then but I see that didn't stop you from saying something stupid.

You look all the same to me, and he was a right wing loon.

Diversion alert. Name some of those Tea Party terrorists you keep warning everyone about.

I have no idea who you're talking about. Teabaggers are mostly old, white, fat people.

I'd say hide the twinkies and Chic-fil-A sammiches. They are the ones most in danger. lol

Translation: I don't have anything to contribute, I'm just here to derail the thread.

Oh, was this a serious thread?

Thanks for confirming.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?

The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

Hi JakeStarkey
The push to only recognize pro-gay as a creed, but not anti-gay as a creed,
is causing court cases ruling against businesses that refuse certain services.

So people are being fined for not catering to gay weddings and couples.

What I have suggested to remedy this situation while remaining neutral,
is to bar people from doing business together with CONFLICTING CREEDS.

So if they cannot resolve their differences, if disputes are going to result in legal actions or expenses,
then both parties are required NOT to do business WITH EACH OTHER.

That would not discriminate against either side, but fault the unresolved conflicts for
why they should be either not allowed or not encouraged to do business with each other.

If it cannot be banned (as a way to save on court costs by preventing lawsuits over conflicting creeds)
I would at least strongly recommend against it.

As I offered before, the idea was for businesses to have clients sign disclaimers
agreeing to "free mediation, conflict resolution and consensus" should any dispute arise.
And if the dispute cannot be resolved amicably to the satisfaction of both parties,
then the parties agree to refrain from or cease doing business together, and to refund
any money paid for services not delivered. Any expenses already incurred would either
be resolved by mediation, forfeited by agreement, splitting the difference and/or donating
any amount in dispute to charity as both sides can agree to in order to prevent legal issues.

 

[S.J.]

Who is being penalized because of Marriage Equality?

The folks who want to penalize LGBT for marrying the want?

Who is "the want"?

 

[emilynghiem]

Here they are

except when they do it, you disavow any link to the tea party so no one or any action will ever be linked to the Tea Party by the OP

Put the bong down.

See?

See what? You posted a random picture with no names and a comment that makes no sense. How do expect me to answer it, dumb shit?

He probably didn't think he had to, since it was pretty big news last year. But then guys like you exist in your own little wingnut bubble, so maybe you didn't catch it when it happened:

Las Vegas cop-killing couple left swastika-stamped manifesto on slain officer's body

I think these two could have been more deluded with drugs:

"Brandon Monroe, 22 — who also moved to the complex in the past few weeks — told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he avoided the couple, who were in their late 20s, because they usually appeared to be high on methamphetamine."

If you had cited that shooter in Louisiana, Rusty Houser, he actually spoke regularly on radio shows
about his political views. At least that case had more credibility and connection to Tea Party lines.

These two here remind me more of Jared Loughner, the shooter in Tucson Arizona who was
mentally obsessed with anti-government rhetoric.

 

[IronFist]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

 

[emilynghiem]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

Dear IronFist
My guess would be that liberalism and conservatism would be recognized as complements,
and relegated to tasks and programs best suited to each approach, respectively.

I just finished describing it to two coworkers I met this week using the analogy someone told me:
as the Democrats being the "Mommy party" and the Republicans being the "Daddy party"
and we run to Mommy for some things while depending on Daddy for the others.
We need both, they don't need to be fighting over control of the household
when both roles are needed for their own respective purposes.

Let the Democrats handle the people in the lower socioeconomic classes
who AGREE to manage their labor, resources and social services through
a school system where participants can register and keep track of credits owed or worked off.
Democrats who want to manage everything through Govt can offer this to constituents who
AGREE to a socialistic democratically run system to equalize access to benefits. That's fine,
let people CHOOSE to fund and be under that system if that is where they are with their
political growth and progress.

Let the Republicans handle people in the business and upper management classes
who want to invest their taxes into sustainable growth, medical and education programs that work,
and self-government where members and leaders in society can be TRAINED and mentored to
manage their own programs, campuses, districts, cities and states before running for federal offices.

We could organize by party instead of fighting because of people in different stages
or class levels who want different levels of support through Govt. Why not accommodate the different
levels and work out the rules for tax contributions depending on what level you want to participate in.

Why can't we just accept the reality that people are in different stages of social and political growth,
and accommodate all levels fairly where everyone is contributing in a healthy balanced way
consistent with their political beliefs WITHOUT conflicting.

 

[S.J.]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

That day has come. It's why Trump is doing so well.

 

[BluesLegend]

OP let me sum this up for you, elected Democrats and their pals in the MSM are lying lowlife scum.

 

[Hancock]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

Dear IronFist
My guess would be that liberalism and conservatism would be recognized as complements,
and relegated to tasks and programs best suited to each approach, respectively.

I just finished describing it to two coworkers I met this week using the analogy someone told me:
as the Democrats being the "Mommy party" and the Republicans being the "Daddy party"
and we run to Mommy for some things while depending on Daddy for the others.
We need both, they don't need to be fighting over control of the household
when both roles are needed for their own respective purposes.

Let the Democrats handle the people in the lower socioeconomic classes
who AGREE to manage their labor, resources and social services through
a school system where participants can register and keep track of credits owed or worked off.
Democrats who want to manage everything through Govt can offer this to constituents who
AGREE to a socialistic democratically run system to equalize access to benefits. That's fine,
let people CHOOSE to fund and be under that system if that is where they are with their
political growth and progress.

Let the Republicans handle people in the business and upper management classes
who want to invest their taxes into sustainable growth, medical and education programs that work,
and self-government where members and leaders in society can be TRAINED and mentored to
manage their own programs, campuses, districts, cities and states before running for federal offices.

We could organize by party instead of fighting because of people in different stages
or class levels who want different levels of support through Govt. Why not accommodate the different
levels and work out the rules for tax contributions depending on what level you want to participate in.

Why can't we just accept the reality that people are in different stages of social and political growth,
and accommodate all levels fairly where everyone is contributing in a healthy balanced way
consistent with their political beliefs WITHOUT conflicting.

The problem here is the people in the lower socioeconomic class can't fund any system. They are takers. Most of them pay nothing into the system as it is now! Social programs depend on the earners paying their taxes. So, while those people may agree to participate in that system, how would it be funded without help from those who do not wish to participate?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[emilynghiem]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

Dear IronFist
My guess would be that liberalism and conservatism would be recognized as complements,
and relegated to tasks and programs best suited to each approach, respectively.

I just finished describing it to two coworkers I met this week using the analogy someone told me:
as the Democrats being the "Mommy party" and the Republicans being the "Daddy party"
and we run to Mommy for some things while depending on Daddy for the others.
We need both, they don't need to be fighting over control of the household
when both roles are needed for their own respective purposes.

Let the Democrats handle the people in the lower socioeconomic classes
who AGREE to manage their labor, resources and social services through
a school system where participants can register and keep track of credits owed or worked off.
Democrats who want to manage everything through Govt can offer this to constituents who
AGREE to a socialistic democratically run system to equalize access to benefits. That's fine,
let people CHOOSE to fund and be under that system if that is where they are with their
political growth and progress.

Let the Republicans handle people in the business and upper management classes
who want to invest their taxes into sustainable growth, medical and education programs that work,
and self-government where members and leaders in society can be TRAINED and mentored to
manage their own programs, campuses, districts, cities and states before running for federal offices.

We could organize by party instead of fighting because of people in different stages
or class levels who want different levels of support through Govt. Why not accommodate the different
levels and work out the rules for tax contributions depending on what level you want to participate in.

Why can't we just accept the reality that people are in different stages of social and political growth,
and accommodate all levels fairly where everyone is contributing in a healthy balanced way
consistent with their political beliefs WITHOUT conflicting.

The problem here is the people in the lower socioeconomic class can't fund any system. They are takers. Most of them pay nothing into the system as it is now! Social programs depend on the earners paying their taxes. So, while those people may agree to participate in that system, how would it be funded without help from those who do not wish to participate?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Dear Hancock
Let's get real here

(A) If you look at who funds the Democrats, they have plenty of money to invest in
reforming prisons and schools to be sustainable programs. In Houston alone,
when two Democrats ran against each other for Mayor, for the Runoffs alone,
they spent 1.4 million and 1.6 million, and that was just the month before the runoff.

Obama spent a reported 6 billion on re-election, but that was exaggerated and closer to 2-4 billion.

So if the voters demanded that the parties and candidates start investing campaign funding
into actual programs (even 10% of money raised going into creating the programs they CLAIM to represent)
this could start a new trend.

And I would even suggest using funds to BUY OUT public schools and setting up local prison
and correction programs so these party members can create jobs and get paid contract money managing their own community prison programs under the reforms the party has promised (such as replacing the death penalty with mental health/rehab and meaningful restitution as part of life sentencing).

(B) Let's look at how much money is owed to taxpayers for partisan conflict causing govt waste:

The partisan divide over the budget and ACA terms cost taxpayers an estimated
24 billion.

The contested war spending has been estimated at 30 trillion.

The corporate conflict of interest over Solyndra blamed on Obama cost taxpayers 500 million.

The bailout of Maxxam by abusing junk bonds cost taxpayers 1.6 billion that was blamed on Reagan's
policies of deregulation that invited such corporate abuse of govt.

The Democrat destruction of Freedmen's Town national landmarks in Houston
have cost taxpayers anywhere between 10 million in one incident to over 700 million in damages by
a rough estimate of the political history of corruption to launder money and grants through that district.

Any NUMBER of these cases could be argued as "restitution owed" to taxpayers,
and pressure the Party and elected leaders responsible for paying back by investing
so much fundraising into programs that would SOLVE these problems.

* Such as investing 12 billion raised and managed per party
into "singlepayer" health care for the Democrats who believe in funding and mandating that
and into "free market" programs for Republicans who believe in investing taxes into that

* Reclaiming the district of Freedmen's Town, including the Federal Reserve bank
built over the former site of historic burials that were desecrated in order to construct the building,
and setting up a formal program for assessing "debts and damages" owed to the public
for govt abuses and corporate corruptions, so that the money ALREADY PAID by taxpayers
is reimbursed as credits that can then be invested in jobs and programs CORRECTING the abuses.

If the wrongdoers pay it back over time, the legal teams supervising the collections can add to the
restitution the costs for them to collect back for taxpayers so there is no charge to the public for
the wrongs committed by corporate and political abusers of govt and public resources.

If the taxpayers and citizens have to bail out these debts and damages because the govt FAILED
to hold wrongdoers accountable, then the citizens who pay the cost should be able to claim
the land and programs as collateral on the debts. And create land trusts where the value of the
programs and property can be used to issue federal notes, just like the federal reserve,
in order to create and manage local economies around govt corrections and reforms.

These are some ways I would recommend to create jobs and ownership
for even constituents who claim to have no money.

* RICO laws already allow for victims of organized crime and trafficking to RECLAIM
any property abused for such crimes as RESTITUTION. so given the high volume of
trafficking drugs and slaves through the poorest areas and districts, the RICO laws
can be used to claim property. This property can be renovated to create schools,
housing or other means of collecting resources to rebuild communities, create jobs and generate
business revenue so the poor don't have to stay poor. There are ways to claim restitution
to rebuild the economy even in distressed districts, and use that as leverage for sustainable development.

 

[Hancock]

All that homosexual mafia sitting in the white house obviously doesn't want to see the Tea Party taking power so they always blame the others in hate crimes without thinking about consequences. One day everyone will get tired of that and it will be the end of liberalism.

Dear IronFist
My guess would be that liberalism and conservatism would be recognized as complements,
and relegated to tasks and programs best suited to each approach, respectively.

I just finished describing it to two coworkers I met this week using the analogy someone told me:
as the Democrats being the "Mommy party" and the Republicans being the "Daddy party"
and we run to Mommy for some things while depending on Daddy for the others.
We need both, they don't need to be fighting over control of the household
when both roles are needed for their own respective purposes.

Let the Democrats handle the people in the lower socioeconomic classes
who AGREE to manage their labor, resources and social services through
a school system where participants can register and keep track of credits owed or worked off.
Democrats who want to manage everything through Govt can offer this to constituents who
AGREE to a socialistic democratically run system to equalize access to benefits. That's fine,
let people CHOOSE to fund and be under that system if that is where they are with their
political growth and progress.

Let the Republicans handle people in the business and upper management classes
who want to invest their taxes into sustainable growth, medical and education programs that work,
and self-government where members and leaders in society can be TRAINED and mentored to
manage their own programs, campuses, districts, cities and states before running for federal offices.

We could organize by party instead of fighting because of people in different stages
or class levels who want different levels of support through Govt. Why not accommodate the different
levels and work out the rules for tax contributions depending on what level you want to participate in.

Why can't we just accept the reality that people are in different stages of social and political growth,
and accommodate all levels fairly where everyone is contributing in a healthy balanced way
consistent with their political beliefs WITHOUT conflicting.

The problem here is the people in the lower socioeconomic class can't fund any system. They are takers. Most of them pay nothing into the system as it is now! Social programs depend on the earners paying their taxes. So, while those people may agree to participate in that system, how would it be funded without help from those who do not wish to participate?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Dear Hancock
Let's get real here

(A) If you look at who funds the Democrats, they have plenty of money to invest in
reforming prisons and schools to be sustainable programs. In Houston alone,
when two Democrats ran against each other for Mayor, for the Runoffs alone,
they spent 1.4 million and 1.6 million, and that was just the month before the runoff.

Obama spent a reported 6 billion on re-election, but that was exaggerated and closer to 2-4 billion.

So if the voters demanded that the parties and candidates start investing campaign funding
into actual programs (even 10% of money raised going into creating the programs they CLAIM to represent)
this could start a new trend.

And I would even suggest using funds to BUY OUT public schools and setting up local prison
and correction programs so these party members can create jobs and get paid contract money managing their own community prison programs under the reforms the party has promised (such as replacing the death penalty with mental health/rehab and meaningful restitution as part of life sentencing).

(B) Let's look at how much money is owed to taxpayers for partisan conflict causing govt waste:

The partisan divide over the budget and ACA terms cost taxpayers an estimated
24 billion.

The contested war spending has been estimated at 30 trillion.

The corporate conflict of interest over Solyndra blamed on Obama cost taxpayers 500 million.

The bailout of Maxxam by abusing junk bonds cost taxpayers 1.6 billion that was blamed on Reagan's
policies of deregulation that invited such corporate abuse of govt.

The Democrat destruction of Freedmen's Town national landmarks in Houston
have cost taxpayers anywhere between 10 million in one incident to over 700 million in damages by
a rough estimate of the political history of corruption to launder money and grants through that district.

Any NUMBER of these cases could be argued as "restitution owed" to taxpayers,
and pressure the Party and elected leaders responsible for paying back by investing
so much fundraising into programs that would SOLVE these problems.

* Such as investing 12 billion raised and managed per party
into "singlepayer" health care for the Democrats who believe in funding and mandating that
and into "free market" programs for Republicans who believe in investing taxes into that

* Reclaiming the district of Freedmen's Town, including the Federal Reserve bank
built over the former site of historic burials that were desecrated in order to construct the building,
and setting up a formal program for assessing "debts and damages" owed to the public
for govt abuses and corporate corruptions, so that the money ALREADY PAID by taxpayers
is reimbursed as credits that can then be invested in jobs and programs CORRECTING the abuses.

If the wrongdoers pay it back over time, the legal teams supervising the collections can add to the
restitution the costs for them to collect back for taxpayers so there is no charge to the public for
the wrongs committed by corporate and political abusers of govt and public resources.

If the taxpayers and citizens have to bail out these debts and damages because the govt FAILED
to hold wrongdoers accountable, then the citizens who pay the cost should be able to claim
the land and programs as collateral on the debts. And create land trusts where the value of the
programs and property can be used to issue federal notes, just like the federal reserve,
in order to create and manage local economies around govt corrections and reforms.

These are some ways I would recommend to create jobs and ownership
for even constituents who claim to have no money.

* RICO laws already allow for victims of organized crime and trafficking to RECLAIM
any property abused for such crimes as RESTITUTION. so given the high volume of
trafficking drugs and slaves through the poorest areas and districts, the RICO laws
can be used to claim property. This property can be renovated to create schools,
housing or other means of collecting resources to rebuild communities, create jobs and generate
business revenue so the poor don't have to stay poor. There are ways to claim restitution
to rebuild the economy even in distressed districts, and use that as leverage for sustainable development.

Let's,

A) yes democratic politicians and donors are just as wealthy as gop politicians and donors. The thing is that instead of giving their money to fund their plans, as you suggested earlier, they choose to take from the working class who usually do not need or want to partake in their plans. It's the clearest example of hypocrisy in us politics.

B) partisan conflict causing gov waste? Well I guess that would depend on what partisan system your agreeing to side with, right? All of that money is dwarfed by entitlements that are now "owed" to (some) taxpayers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[ninja007]

For years now we've been hearing warnings from the left about how those horrible radical Tea Party members were gonna unleash their insanity and start killing innocent people. The Geico spokesman, Lance Baxter left a voicemail at Freedom Works accusing them of being murderers (Geico had enough sense to fire him) and every talking head from the left engaged in the same kind of character assassination with "warnings", suggesting that innocent people would soon start dying at the hands of Tea Party extremists.
Only thing is, all the nut jobs with guns have turned out to be liberals and homosexuals. Vester Flannigan is the latest example, a black racist liberal homosexual who couldn't get along with his coworkers and employers.
No Tea Partiers though. Where are those killers the disappointed left have been salivating over?

Geico FIRES D.C. Douglas: Voice Actor Dropped After Insulting FreedomWorks, Tea Partiers

Just add this to the list of things that never happened.

Obama turning America into Socialists
Obama taking all your guns
Our economy in ruin if we didn't vote for Romney
New York City and Miami under water

you don't think 1,2,3 aren't happening? lmao.