Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

[gslack]

Well, I've heard of people who jumped off the Titanic, but now I've met the 'Einstein' who 'used his head', swam out to the sinking vessel and jumped ON board...pea brain would be a major step up for you...

You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron.

If your tiny little brain needs a one size fits all 'conspiracy theory' to explain away a very complex problem like skyrocketing health care costs, let's start at childhood. From an early age, we were all taught right from wrong. Ronbo Reagan, 30 years of Republican dominated legislation, economics and cultural dogma have delivered 'wrong' as now being LAWFUL. Doctors, insurance cartels, Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO's all got the 'memo'...sorry pal, looks like you were left off the list.

Here's your homework assignment, educate yourself on:
medical loss ratio
The Medical Malpractice Myth
Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom
Frank Luntz
Grover Norquist
Lee Atwater
Karl Rove
The Heritage Foundation
Koch Industries
Scaife Family Foundations

Get back to me when you have an adult brain...OK?

BTW..."Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.."

I DENY it...

NAFTA...North American Free Trade Agreement

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......

above your cited article reads....

"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."

Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...

And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......

It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: "Clinton was the man behind NAFTA

I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement

Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush was the man behind NAFTA...................so don't even try and deny it..

You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...

Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —

See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.

The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.

Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.

See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?

Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....

Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. "This section requires expansion." Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..

 

[Bfgrn]

All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......

above your cited article reads....

"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."

Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...

And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......

It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: "Clinton was the man behind NAFTA

I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement

Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush was the man behind NAFTA...................so don't even try and deny it..

You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...

Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —

See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.

The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.

Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.

See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?

Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....

Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. "This section requires expansion." Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..

Hey, I was wrong, George H.W. Bush was not the man behind NAFTA

Ronbo Reagan was...

NAFTA Timeline

November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”

January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.

December 10, 1985
President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.


Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

October 3, 1987
Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.

January 2, 1988
Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.

January 1, 1989
The FTA takes effect.


Mexico and the US drawing closer together

November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.

June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.

August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.

April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.

May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.

June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

April 4, 1992
Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.

August 12, 1992
Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.

September 17, 1992
Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.

October 7, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).

December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
NAFTA Timeline

 

[gslack]

Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration. It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election. NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.

However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.

The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.

So to get back on topic, my theory:

The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers. They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.

They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.

They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise. They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.

So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies. Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state. And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL

WOW...are you really THAT stupid? The only one trying to twist history with semantics is YOU.

So tell me pea brain, it is your contention that Bill Clinton was 'the man behind NAFTA'.

Maybe you really are THAT stupid. The definition of 'the man behind' any policy is genesis. That would be the person who had the idea, proposed the policy and negotiated the terms.

OK Einstein...please give me the historical information on how the Governor of Arkansas created a federal policy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: "Clinton was the man behind NAFTA

I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement

Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush was the man behind NAFTA...................so don't even try and deny it..

You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...

Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —

See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.

The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.

Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.

See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?

Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....

Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. "This section requires expansion." Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..

Hey, I was wrong, George H.W. Bush was not the man behind NAFTA

Ronbo Reagan was...

NAFTA Timeline

November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”

January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.

December 10, 1985
President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.


Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

October 3, 1987
Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.

January 2, 1988
Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.

January 1, 1989
The FTA takes effect.


Mexico and the US drawing closer together

November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.

June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.

August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.

April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.

May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.

June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

April 4, 1992
Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.

August 12, 1992
Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.

September 17, 1992
Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.

October 7, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).

December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
NAFTA Timeline

Bush41 was one of the most evil scumbags in human history.

 

[Bfgrn]

NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration. It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election. NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.

However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.

The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.

So to get back on topic, my theory:

The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers. They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.

They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.

They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise. They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.

So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies. Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state. And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.

Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish.

What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.

What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!

To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash..

Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.

SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.

Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'

 

[gslack]

Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL

WOW...are you really THAT stupid? The only one trying to twist history with semantics is YOU.

So tell me pea brain, it is your contention that Bill Clinton was 'the man behind NAFTA'.

Maybe you really are THAT stupid. The definition of 'the man behind' any policy is genesis. That would be the person who had the idea, proposed the policy and negotiated the terms.

OK Einstein...please give me the historical information on how the Governor of Arkansas created a federal policy...

Who signed it shithead..... Come on coward say it.... Who ratified that POS..... You refuse to say it why?

Come on coward tell us who ratified it? When I said "man behind" just like anyone else I meant man who ratified it... When you think of the healthcare bill do you think about the guys who wrote it or the guy who signed it into action? now don't be such a little coward and semantics weasel... You dam good and well what that meant and just as I said before it makes no dam difference who helped push it along, he signed and ratified the POS....

Thats twice now I said that now you little coward, and twice you have refused to admit clinton ratified it.....

Once again we see your true nature tool.... you are a little punk who tries to argue meaningless semantics that have no bearing to confound the point... The point still remains bill clinton could have vetoed it and he didn't he signed it... So again where is that so-called party difference tool?

There is no real difference and tea party movement tries to address this issue..

now you can cry till you have no tears left, and it will still amount to dick.... Bil clinton ratified NAFTA, he could have vetoed it and he didn't. one party helped lay the groundwork and the other party came in and drove it home and finalized it.... Both fucking parties did it, and that is one of the many reasons why the tea parties even exist....

 

[Foxfyre]

NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration. It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election. NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.

However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.

The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.

So to get back on topic, my theory:

The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers. They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.

They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.

They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise. They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.

So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies. Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state. And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.

Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish.

What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.

What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!

To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash..

Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.

SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.

Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'

Sorry, but I suspect I've read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than you have. If not, at least I was able to comprehend what I have read.

And I have read absolutely nothing - nada - zip - zilch - that suggests that what the Tea Partiers are advocating has EVER failed. However, the evidence of the failure of socialism and a lot of other leftwing notions is glaring.

Perhaps if you could just make a real good effort to remove all ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, and other non applicable logical fallacies from your repetoire of debate tools just for a little bit, and actually focus on each of those principles, you might even agree. If not at least you would be debating the same thing I'm debating instead of a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.

 

[Bfgrn]

NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration. It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election. NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.

However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.

The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.

So to get back on topic, my theory:

The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers. They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.

They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.

They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise. They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.

So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies. Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state. And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.

Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish.

What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.

What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!

To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash..

Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.

SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.

Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'

Sorry, but I suspect I've read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than you have. If not, at least I was able to comprehend what I have read.

And I have read absolutely nothing - nada - zip - zilch - that suggests that what the Tea Partiers are advocating has EVER failed. However, the evidence of the failure of socialism and a lot of other leftwing notions is glaring.

Perhaps if you could just make a real good effort to remove all ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, and other non applicable logical fallacies from your repetoire of debate tools just for a little bit, and actually focus on each of those principles, you might even agree. If not at least you would be debating the same thing I'm debating instead of a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.

Clearly you and I are on a different intellectual level. So here is some of the education you will need to catch up.

There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about, it's just that you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...

Here's a short list to get you started...
Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...

Try to get back to me in the next decade, I'm not as young as I used to be...

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTING: Bfgrn said this: "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."

That was the same day he said this: "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"

And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:

. . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...

Here's a short list to get you started...
Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...

Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay. I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.

Bfgrn, I'm sorry. But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.

It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused. Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.

And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted. Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses. Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.

 

[Bfgrn]

NOTING: Bfgrn said this: "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."

That was the same day he said this: "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"

And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:

. . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...

Here's a short list to get you started...
Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...

Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay. I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.

Bfgrn, I'm sorry. But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.

It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused. Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.

And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted. Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses. Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.

The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.

You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?

Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?

When I say "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.

BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.

But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...

THE EVOLVING CORPORATION


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[gslack]

Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...

 

[AllieBaba]

Med student my ass. Med students don't have time to hang out on message boards.

 

[Bfgrn]

Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...

WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!

Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you.

I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTING: Bfgrn said this: "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."

That was the same day he said this: "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"

And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:

. . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...

Here's a short list to get you started...
Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...

Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay. I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.

Bfgrn, I'm sorry. But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.

It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused. Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.

And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted. Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses. Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.

The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.

You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?

Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?

When I say "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.

BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.

But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...

THE EVOLVING CORPORATION


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Sigh. I refer to my previous post and rest my case.

 

[gslack]

Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...

WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!

Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you.

I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen

Oh I'm sorry I got you confused with the guy who posts just like you... you know the other one using the same BS argument you are, using the same lame insults, and the same "I am smart and you're not" line of nonsense... yeah seems you two are team so I got ya mixed up...

I voted Bill CLinton and Al Gore believe it or not... Also entertained the idea of voting John Kerry once till i found out he and bush hang in the same crowd... Glad he didn't win.... hate to have to apologize for that as well.

Try to get your proxies straight will ya....

 

[Bfgrn]

NOTING: Bfgrn said this: "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."

That was the same day he said this: "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"

And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:



Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay. I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.

Bfgrn, I'm sorry. But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.

It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused. Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.

And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted. Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses. Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.

The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.

You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?

Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?

When I say "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.

BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.

But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...

THE EVOLVING CORPORATION


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Sigh. I refer to my previous post and rest my case.

The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.

It has to be genetic deficiency.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

 

[AllieBaba]

The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.

You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?

Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?

When I say "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.

BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.

But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...

THE EVOLVING CORPORATION


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Sigh. I refer to my previous post and rest my case.

The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.

It has to be genetic deficiency.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.

 

[Mr Natural]

Sigh. I refer to my previous post and rest my case.

The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.

It has to be genetic deficiency.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.

Oh geez, another one with Nazi Tourette's.