This state is considered so red that no candidate for President ever needs to visit Oklahoma. Presidential candidates will spend millions of dollars in the next two years in states that are considered "in play".
If suddenly, Oklahoma elected a few democrats to Congress, these campaigns would notice. The national parties would raise national money to spend here, buying ads and employing staffers to try to win. We are talking millions of dollars and plenty of jobs.
Vote democrat. Do it for Oklahoma.
I'd rather have Repugnican money spent here.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
I'd rather have Repugnican money spent here.
Where's your sense of adventure?
;D
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
I'd rather have Repugnican money spent here.
Accepting RM's premise: Why would Republicans spend money here when they're going to get elected no matter what they do?
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2010, 09:34:59 AM
Accepting RM's premise: Why would Republicans spend money here when they're going to get elected no matter what they do?
That is my point. If we elect some democrats, the republicans will be forced to actually campaign. Not only will national campaign money roll in, but the republicans will be required to have candidates that appeal to more Oklahomans than just the extreme political edge.
Oklahoma voting Republican just means we aren't as backwardsass as people think Okies are 8)
Problem is, the Democrats won't nominate someone I'd vote for. The love the pretty people and those who make good sound bites. I'd have voted for Richardson easily over McCain in '08. But noooooooo.....
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2010, 09:56:27 AM
Problem is, the Democrats won't nominate someone I'd vote for.
It is a chicken and egg thing.
Really good democrats usually can't win so they don't run for public office in Oklahoma.
But if we were to elect a bunch of them this November...suddenly both parties would field better candidates.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2010, 10:17:05 AM
Really good democrats usually can't win
Aaahh, so the truth finally comes out on how we wound up with the likes of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama. ;)
I will vote for whoever promises to represent us the best by pledging to leverage private sector growth by limiting public sector growth. I also would like to see some smarter people. Not academics, but real business people with a history of good decision making. Give me someone who is not afraid to speak his/her mind, and a mind that is worth hearing.
I'd also like to see frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads. Is that too much to ask?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 27, 2010, 03:29:20 PM
I'd also like to see frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads. Is that too much to ask?
(http://newsbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/985-obama-dr-evil2.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2010, 09:12:06 AM
This state is considered so red that no candidate for President ever needs to visit Oklahoma. Presidential candidates will spend millions of dollars in the next two years in states that are considered "in play".
If suddenly, Oklahoma elected a few democrats to Congress, these campaigns would notice. The national parties would raise national money to spend here, buying ads and employing staffers to try to win. We are talking millions of dollars and plenty of jobs.
Vote democrat. Do it for Oklahoma.
Wouldn't be worth it.
Why wouldn't it be worth it?
You only vote for people with R in front of their name?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2010, 10:17:05 AM
It is a chicken and egg thing.
Really good democrats usually can't win so they don't run for public office in Oklahoma.
But if we were to elect a bunch of them this November...suddenly both parties would field better candidates.
So are you suggesting we need a Democratic version of the teabaggers? I'll do a lot of things for the Democratic Party, but a lobotomy is not one of them.
Quote from: Ed W on September 27, 2010, 04:53:47 PM
So are you suggesting we need a Democratic version of the teabaggers? I'll do a lot of things for the Democratic Party, but a lobotomy is not one of them.
Every time you folks call tea partiers "teabaggers", I can't help but laugh given how freakin funny that is. Let me say it. TEABAGGERS! TEABAGGERS! TEABAGGERS! You see how funny that is Ed? It's even funnier when you repeat over and over.
The dems do have a TEABAGGER equivalent, did you forget the media hyped Coffee Party? Well apparently the country has forgotten since at their recent convention a whopping 350 people showed up.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100925/NEWS01/309250121/1008/Coffee+party+urges+voters+to+get+involved+at+Louisville+convention
My, Guido, how you do go on! I didn't realize you were so sensitive about this. I'll make a note of so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2010, 04:03:09 PM
Why wouldn't it be worth it?
You only vote for people with R in front of their name?
OK, I have to ask...
You only vote for people with D in front (or after) their name?
If the Republicans are as bad as you insinuate (and
some are), what damage would even worse Democrats do before we could have both parties nominate "quality" candidates. Too big a risk in general. For the record, I have voted for a few notable Democrats such as David Boren when he was senator. There was a time in Oklahoma around the 70s that a vote for a Republican was merely a chance to exercise your right to complain about the winner. At least in local and state elections that was mostly true.
Quote from: Ed W on September 27, 2010, 04:53:47 PM
So are you suggesting we need a Democratic version of the teabaggers?
Wevus,
Wonder why some Republicans and Tea Party people purposely say Democrat instead of Democratic?
Let's keep in mind people, that it was the Tea Party's own fault for the term "Tea Bagger". They coined it themselves. So when Gweed gets all redfaced and has to extract his panties from his a$$crack, it's not really justified.
It was penned in April of 2009 pretty much, when they asked organizers to send Washington a message on Tax Day, and "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You."
So all you right-wing tea party sympathizers can stop with the faux hand-wringing about that term now.
I'll even cite my reference..
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=
Quote from: Hoss on September 27, 2010, 08:56:03 PM
Let's keep in mind people, that it was the Tea Party's own fault for the term "Tea Bagger".
Let's also keep in mind that when the undesirable connotation became apparent, there was a desire to lose the nickname.
Some of my high school acquaintances thought it was clever to take their first initial and the first three letters of their last name to make a nickname. Unfortunately Tom Watson's new name was not so well received at the family dinner table. (True story, not the famous golfer though.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 27, 2010, 09:21:46 PM
Let's also keep in mind that when the undesirable connotation became apparent, there was a desire to lose the nickname.
Some of my high school acquaintances thought it was clever to take their first initial and the first three letters of their last name to make a nickname. Unfortunately Tom Watson's new name was not so well received at the family dinner table. (True story, not the famous golfer though.)
And the point is? Appearances are everything. If you're the one to call yourself the thing you wish not to be called, don't complain when it takes off like wildfire. Especially when it's so damned funny. The tea-bag...errr...sorry, tea-partiers brought that one on themselves.
Quote from: Hoss on September 27, 2010, 08:56:03 PM
Let's keep in mind people, that it was the Tea Party's own fault for the term "Tea Bagger". They coined it themselves. So when Gweed gets all redfaced and has to extract his panties from his a$$crack, it's not really justified.
It was penned in April of 2009 pretty much, when they asked organizers to send Washington a message on Tax Day, and "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You."
So all you right-wing tea party sympathizers can stop with the faux hand-wringing about that term now.
I'll even cite my reference..
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=
This is where the Tea Party began.....................
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
Quote from: Hoss on September 27, 2010, 09:55:06 PM
And the point is? Appearances are everything. If you're the one to call yourself the thing you wish not to be called, don't complain when it takes off like wildfire. Especially when it's so damned funny. The tea-bag...errr...sorry, tea-partiers brought that one on themselves.
I guess you never had a nickname you didn't like, self started or otherwise. Lucky you.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 27, 2010, 10:11:06 PM
I guess you never had a nickname you didn't like, self started or otherwise. Lucky you.
Hoss is the only one I've ever had. Likely because I didn't try and make myself better than others growing up and try to pi$$ people off. Alot of the teaparty problems can be attributed to that. They're a fringe element of a perfectly viable political party that the more level-headed members of their base cringe when they get talked about. Kinda like the wacky uncle you have but try not to talk about.
Only problem is this uncle is out there 'hey, look at me!' 'Look at the stupid stuff I can say!'.
Quote from: unreliablesource on September 27, 2010, 09:59:48 PM
This is where the Tea Party began.....................
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
May be where the tea party began, the connotation however is a different story.
Quote from: Ed W on September 27, 2010, 05:50:07 PM
My, Guido, how you do go on! I didn't realize you were so sensitive about this. I'll make a note of so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
I am not being overly sensitive. I am simply pointing out how freakin hilarious you are. Look at me, I am calling someone a teabagger, ain't I clever? Keep going with it, it is damned funny.
I lose interest in a political conversation when a liberal blurts out "Tea Ba**er". I don't personally associate with the Tea Party movement nor have I been to a rally and I've not donated to a Tea Party candidate. I do like the Libertarian ideals in their movement.
Here's why I take exception to the term, aside from it being totally sophomoric:
(http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/teabagging.jpg)
Draw your own conclusions, I chose a relatively sanitary image to illustrate. I've heard the term applied to gay men as a perjorative for years and now liberals think they can be cute by slipping this term into a conversation about right wing politics. I have many gay friends, none of whom would care to be flippantly called a tea ba**er.
I really don't give two shits who first coined the term, whether it was some moron in the Tea Party or Rachael Madcow, it doesn't belong in political discussion amongst mature adults. If you don't believe there's a liberal bias to reporting on the traditional MSM outposts, then why is it you only hear about the smallest percentage of kooks who show up at Tea Party rallys? For the most part of what I've read and seen, the majority of attendees are simply people who are disaffected by the two party system which is doing nothing but keeping the ruling class in power and crapping on the rest of us. I certainly don't characterize the Democratic party by the far left loonies which show up to their rallies and conventions (Cindy Sheehan, code pink, anyone?), nor by their icons like Bill Ayers (hey bombing Federal buildings is just civil disobedience if you are a radical Democrat).
As far as Tea Partiers being a fringe element, they are developing a head of steam. I find the main intent of the movement is good: sending a message to Washington that there's a growing sentiment of citizens not tolerating business as usual in DC and that we are tired of being sold out by corrupt politicians to help special interests and large donors who have kept them in power. I don't think of them as being a far right minority. They are mis-characterized as a bunch of anti-tax racists neither of which seems to be descriptive of the larger movement. It's about smaller government and bringing common sense back to politics. I believe you are going to see this become the new middle-ground movement in America of moderate Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Democrats who simply are tired of corruption and an overly intrusive government.
The time to dismiss them as "fringe" or "splinter" and to continue to hurl derisive perjoratives at them has long past if you want people to take you serious in a political discussion.
Those calling protesters "tea baggers" were probably the same kids that sat in the deepest corner of the library in high school looking up dirty words in the dictionary. "Hurry, look up "sh!t". tee hee
Quote from: guido911 on September 28, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Those calling protesters "tea baggers" were probably the same kids that sat in the deepest corner of the library in high school looking up dirty words in the dictionary. "Hurry, look up "sh!t". tee hee
Oh, I assumed they were the ones who ate paste, peeled Elmer's Glue off their fingers, and usually had an index finger buried to the first knuckle up one of their nostrils. You know, the ones that red Kool Aid made bat smile crazy.
Conan, that is where it started out. Now its spokesperon is Sarah Palin. It is now just a group that just wants lower taxes. They want a "smaller" government like Reagan. So drop spending by 10% and put 50% in the military. Amazing how smaller costs so much more money.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 28, 2010, 09:24:33 AM
Conan, that is where it started out. Now its spokesperon is Sarah Palin. It is now just a group that just wants lower taxes. They want a "smaller" government like Reagan. So drop spending by 10% and put 50% in the military. Amazing how smaller costs so much more money.
And if that's all you are gleaning from it you are either glued to MSNBC or your own paradigms won't allow you to look deeper.
Look, I don't really care for Sarah Palin and don't find her to be a viable candidate for POTUS in 2012, but she's apparently pretty relevant and her endorsement seems to be helping candidates more than POTUS Obama's this election cycle. Candidates she is backing are resonating with voters. It doesn't matter whether you or I like her, what matters is she's managing to mobilize voters.
It's funny, because I find people who are sympathetic to the Tea Party perceive it as both moderate and a middle of the road political voice. Maybe straddling the lines between the Democrats and Republicans or something similar, but in any event surely the return of some basic American Wisdom that most anyone could get behind if they'd just look past the occasional gun-toting dude, or the rare Obama-as-witch-doctor sign carrier.
One of my co-workers has said a version of the same thing that Conan just wrote above, placing the Tea Party on a place much closer to the practical middle of things than the people who currently run Washington. There's a sense when she talks to me that she can't understand why I, a reasonably thoughtful liberal, can't see why the Tea Party wouldn't be a reasonable and thoughtful alternative to the Bums in Washington.
The problem with this formulation is that it's just simply not true. The Tea Party is deeply conservative in all the important ways, and really is just not liberal, left, or even centrist. It's unattractive to most folks who have a left lean to them, and though there are admittedly D's who've attended and will continue to attend Tea Party events, these are folks who were weak D leaners to begin with.
I think the crucial confusion is that Tea Partiers are mistaking a revolutionary intraparty movement for a revolutionary interparty movement. Not to minimize the importance; it's the first time in a generation that Republicans have felt free enough to fight amongst themselves, and it sure as shootin' is going to affect the political makeup of Congress over the next cycle (or two, or three). But the "common sense" that the Tea Party is selling is commonsensical if you're already swimming in the conservative end of the pool. It just seems whackadoo if you're on the other end.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 10:11:41 AM
And if that's all you are gleaning from it you are either glued to MSNBC or your own paradigms won't allow you to look deeper.
Look, I don't really care for Sarah Palin and don't find her to be a viable candidate for POTUS in 2012, but she's apparently pretty relevant and her endorsement seems to be helping candidates more than POTUS Obama's this election cycle. Candidates she is backing are resonating with voters. It doesn't matter whether you or I like her, what matters is she's managing to mobilize voters.
I don't even have cable. I have challenged tea partiers about the tea party. If you are for smaller government spending, why do you have a Ronald Reagan pin? They replied with "its just about lower taxes". Then they unfriended me on facebook (I only met them once). That single sentence I think sums up the Tea Party. As for Palin, she "mobilizes voters" but those aren't the voters I want to vote. Basically, she is smarter than all the people who would vote for her or because of her. Thats the problem. Sadly there is no IQ test to vote or to run.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2010, 10:24:59 AM
It's funny, because I find people who are sympathetic to the Tea Party perceive it as both moderate and a middle of the road political voice. Maybe straddling the lines between the Democrats and Republicans or something similar, but in any event surely the return of some basic American Wisdom that most anyone could get behind if they'd just look past the occasional gun-toting dude, or the rare Obama-as-witch-doctor sign carrier.
One of my co-workers has said a version of the same thing that Conan just wrote above, placing the Tea Party on a place much closer to the practical middle of things than the people who currently run Washington. There's a sense when she talks to me that she can't understand why I, a reasonably thoughtful liberal, can't see why the Tea Party wouldn't be a reasonable and thoughtful alternative to the Bums in Washington.
The problem with this formulation is that it's just simply not true. The Tea Party is deeply conservative in all the important ways, and really is just not liberal, left, or even centrist. It's unattractive to most folks who have a left lean to them, and though there are admittedly D's who've attended and will continue to attend Tea Party events, these are folks who were weak D leaners to begin with.
I think the crucial confusion is that Tea Partiers are mistaking a revolutionary intraparty movement for a revolutionary interparty movement. Not to minimize the importance; it's the first time in a generation that Republicans have felt free enough to fight amongst themselves, and it sure as shootin' is going to affect the political makeup of Congress over the next cycle (or two, or three). But the "common sense" that the Tea Party is selling is commonsensical if you're already swimming in the conservative end of the pool. It just seems whackadoo if you're on the other end.
You can watch the youtube video of Liberty Party guy get kicked out of the Tea Party event for having an anti-Palin sign. So even more libertarians get kicked out of the events.
This guy is speaking what the TEA party is supposed to be. The crowd however isn't with him. Gets ugly about 3:30 in when he starts talking about not voting for Sarah Palin for President. He gets call an infiltrator for saying vote for independents not for Sarah Palin.
At the end another speaker gets up and says "we are all on the same team" and you can hear somebody say "he wasn't on our team" (Which I guess is team Palin)
I cant recall if a Demo. has helped any economy anywhere.
Quote from: Quinton on September 28, 2010, 10:48:34 AM
I cant recall if a Demo. has helped any economy anywhere.
You can be sure that the last 8 year administration as Republican didn't. Especially our own. What happened to fiscal conservatism? The R's in congress during that period were spending like a lottery winner who was previously below the poverty line.
Quote from: Quinton on September 28, 2010, 10:48:34 AM
I cant recall if a Demo. has helped any economy anywhere.
Think back to the 90's.
And you guys are basically spouting the common liberal view of the Tea Party.
I thought this was an interesting take on the two views of it:
"Think of tea parties, and one of two images is likely to come to mind. The first picture is painted by the lovely ladies of the left -- Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank -- and includes racist hicks that are too dumb or illiterate to understand that redistribution of wealth actually works.
The second image, the one actually representative of the tea party movement, is one of patriotic pride and righteous anger at politicians that are too dumb or illiterate to understand that Americans are independent and entrepreneurial, and the last thing we need or want is a nanny-state."
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/110141/the_tea_party_in_beverly
How about actually trying to read what the Tea Party stands for instead of filtered interpretation of it:
"We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes"
http://www.thecontract.org/
Wow, that's really moonbat scary stuff, isn't it?
You would think I was pretty damn ignorant if I stated the principle platform of the Democrat Party was all about:
-Murdering the unborn
-Open borders and amnesty for illegals
-Coddle criminals
-Foment class warfare
-Jeopardize national security
-Big government
-Gay marriage
-Confiscatory taxes
-The party of entitlements
etc. ad nauseum
Okay, this is funny as hell. I go to democrats.org to know what their current platform is in their own words and can't get past the comments. People want to know how to get their free posters and bumper stickers. Sorry folks, that entitlement mentality just speaks for itself:
This is speaking about the new website and Democrat Party logo:
"The new Democrats.org gives Democrats cutting-edge tools that will empower people across the country to connect with one another and with the party in new ways. ... Today's Democratic Party is ready to use every single tool in our toolbox to help the President and Democratic leaders to continue to move our country forward."
Tim Kaine
. ..63 Comments..Comments
Eric 1 week ago
'how are we supposed to get free sticker there is no send button--what gives?'
'I had no way to request the new poster or to send my response back to you. What gives here????'
'There is o way to get my address to you for the fre sticker. Where does it get forwarded????? Won't get man on the street this way!!'
'your web site is foobared up, cant' submit request for sticker....didn't someone check this'
'The branding people are surely not original. The slogan has been used by so many organizations from United Way to advertisers! And the logo looks like a target. Helping the Republicans take aim???? We'll do the best we can with it but Geeeeez!'
'Are you serious? That is the most non descript logo I have ever seen. Are you trying to kill us as a party? Who is making these decisions? How about something with some spunk?'
'This look is a joke. Its a disgrace to liberalism and creative/innovative incentives!'
'A lifelong Democrat, even I don't believe that all changes are good. Why do we care about a new logo at this point in time when our nation's future is at stake? There are much more important things to worry about, like trying to keep our majority in Congress for one. Given the anger out there against incumbents, we should be explaining our position better. We are letting the Tea Partiers define the conversation. Should we lose our majority there would be serious ramifications.
I hope the DNC didn't waste too much money on whoever designed the logo. It should ask for its money back.'
http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/a_new_look_for_democrats
I agree with the last poster's comment up to the point that the biggest priority is keeping a Democrat majority in Congress. That's the problem, everyone is so wrapped up in retaining power that they are willing to accept horrible policy just so "their" party can remain in power.
I did not find a "platform" for the November midterms on the Democrats.org page, however there is a tab which shows what the party "stands for". That's a much more intelligent way to judge a political movement stands for, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 27, 2010, 04:03:09 PM
Why wouldn't it be worth it?
You only vote for people with R in front of their name?
No, I and L are also acceptable. I have never seen a fiscally responsible D.
Quote from: Ed W on September 27, 2010, 04:53:47 PM
So are you suggesting we need a Democratic version of the teabaggers? I'll do a lot of things for the Democratic Party, but a lobotomy is not one of them.
How do you feel about being called a libtard?
Quote from: Quinton on September 28, 2010, 10:48:34 AM
I cant recall if a Demo. has helped any economy anywhere.
Well, there's Obama's stash:
By all means, let's attack the teabaggers' intellect and just ignore the circle that the left in this forum run in.
Quote from: guido911 on September 28, 2010, 12:23:27 PM
Well, there's Obama's stash:
By all means, let's attack the teabaggers' intellect and just ignore the circle that the left in this forum run in.
Poverty pimpin' at it's finest. Wow, keep folks mired in mediocrity for votes at the expense of the productive people in society.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2010, 11:05:53 AM
Think back to the 90's.
I kind of remember a guy in the 90s that took advantage of 12 years of Republican presidential guidance that the economy took advantage of to grow in a way that would have made even Jimmy Carter look good. Then, just to top it off, he got a Republican House and Senate, leading to a slide to the center from the left, welfare reform and a budget surplus.
In spite of all these advantages, by the end of his second term there were definate signs of a falling economy in manufacturing. He destroyed in 8 years what took the Republicans 12 years to build up.
Quote from: Smokinokie on September 28, 2010, 11:59:23 AM
How do you feel about being called a libtard?
I always liked to call them Democraps.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2010, 12:50:42 PM
I always liked to call them Democraps.
Yea, I know. My point was about name calling in general. BOTH sides like to call the other by derogatory names. BOTH sides get a little pissy when it happens to them.
While I'm not a tea party enthusiast, I agree with a lot of what they say. I just don't understand their love of everything Palin. My issues with her are the same issues I had with obama. No experience in anything meaningful. Turns out I was correct about obama.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 12:31:46 PM
Poverty pimpin' at it's finest. Wow, keep folks mired in mediocrity for votes at the expense of the productive people in society.
It's not only poverty pimpin, it's also "Let's scare the Depends off Grandma!"
http://www.cicilline.com/release.cfm?ID=39
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 11:23:53 AM
How about actually trying to read what the Tea Party stands for instead of filtered interpretation of it:
"We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes"
http://www.thecontract.org/
Its great there is a website that posts what they say that they stand for. Actually, it looks like the Pledge to America the GOP put out, so based on that, I must say it sounds like the TEA party is just the GOP but they got the letters mixed up on the keyboard. The TEA party does say all this stuff, then the first thing they want to do is vote for Sarah Palin. There is what you say you are for and what you actually do. Take one of the only real Tea Party people. http://christine2010.com/why-christine/ "granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights" I personal believe that US citizens should be given their Consitutional rights. So again, the "protect the Consitution" is only in the places you want to protect it.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 28, 2010, 02:13:08 PM
Its great there is a website that posts what they say that they stand for. Actually, it looks like the Pledge to America the GOP put out, so based on that, I must say it sounds like the TEA party is just the GOP but they got the letters mixed up on the keyboard. The TEA party does say all this stuff, then the first thing they want to do is vote for Sarah Palin. There is what you say you are for and what you actually do. Take one of the only real Tea Party people. http://christine2010.com/why-christine/ "granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights" I personal believe that US citizens should be given their Consitutional rights. So again, the "protect the Consitution" is only in the places you want to protect it.
Where did you read on the Tea Party web site they want to vote for Sarah Palin? I didn't see it. Are we back to supposition and liberal view of the Tea Party again?
I'm totally missing what you were trying to say about Christine O'Donnell's stance on not bestowing Constitutional rights... care to re-write that?
Here's a summary from CBS of the Pledge To America
Jobs:
- Stop job-killing tax hikes
- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income
- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit
- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.
Cutting Spending:
- Repeal and Replace health care
- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward
- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Reforming Congress:
- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority
- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote
Defense:
- Provide resources to troops
- Fund missile defense
- Enforce sanctions in Iran
Here's a link to the 21 page document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37958976/GOP-Pledge-to-America
Her page says "Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights and outsourcing our foreign policy to the U.N." I take that as meaning that we shouldn't be granting terrorists any Constitutional rights.
And why do they say, vote for Sarah Palin? First, watch my video of the guy who says don't vote for Sarah Palin and gets yelled off the stage at a TEA party event. Here is another guy getting booted to the "free speech zone" for having an anti-palin sign.
The article you posted
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/110141/the_tea_party_in_beverly (http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/110141/the_tea_party_in_beverly) ends with " Maybe someday soon it will even be cool to admire Sarah Palin in public. Stranger things have happened, you know."
So maybe they aren't saying you should vote for Palin (not that she is even running yet). But you at least cannot say anything bad about her at a TEA party event.
Why should non-citizen terrorists be given the same rights bestowed on our citizens?
Secondly, if your world view of the Tea Party, GOP, or even the Democratic Party is all Youtube videos, we have nothing more to discuss.
I'm interested in the stated policies espoused by parties, influential movements, and their candidates not disaffected kooks who aren't really even sure why they are at a rally in the first place. I've already explained I'm not into defining political parties or movements by the small minority of nutcases who attract 90% of the attention and that goes for the whackadoodles who show up at liberal rallies as well. If you care to have a conversation based in reality on stated policy, I'm all for it. If you want to have a douching contest between conservatives and liberals, I'll leave that to someone else.
If Sarah Palin is the conduit in waking up people to an out of control government which requires more and more money and takes more liberties with every vote, so be it.
Quote from: Smokinokie on September 28, 2010, 11:59:23 AM
How do you feel about being called a libtard?
You'll have to excuse me for taking so long to respond. I'm incommunicado through the day. And 'incommunicado' is a libtard word for "I have a job." Just take my word for it. Having been educated outside the glorious state of Oklahoma, I actually know and use polysyllabic words. Oh, sorry. That means words of more than one or two syllables. Oh, um, a 'syllable' is merely part of a word....oh, why bother...
Quote from: Ed W on September 28, 2010, 05:34:08 PM
You'll have to excuse me for taking so long to respond. I'm incommunicado through the day. And 'incommunicado' is a libtard word for "I have a job." Just take my word for it. Having been educated outside the glorious state of Oklahoma, I actually know and use polysyllabic words. Oh, sorry. That means words of more than one or two syllables. Oh, um, a 'syllable' is merely part of a word....oh, why bother...
Man you better not as much as misspell a single word in your posts from hereon out.
Quote from: guido911 on September 28, 2010, 05:52:03 PM
Man you better not as much as misspell a single word in your posts from hereon out.
I tend to be kind of obsessive about spelling, Guido. Part of that comes from my high school teacher, Elsie Schwartz, herself a big heaping bag of neurotic behavior and an almost pathological drive to see that we adhered to her plethora of rules. (I'll stop - I swear.) She was a royal PITA but she did teach us vocabulary and spelling. Her husband demanded the same, but taught me to really enjoy American history. He was one of those rare instructors whose enthusiasm for the subject was infectious.
The other reason to spell properly is simple - if you misspell common words or can't write a coherent sentence - you look like a dummy regardless of your real intelligence. Maybe that's old fashioned, but it's unlikely I'll change.
Quote from: Ed W on September 28, 2010, 07:38:09 PM
I tend to be kind of obsessive about spelling, Guido. Part of that comes from my high school teacher, Elsie Schwartz, herself a big heaping bag of neurotic behavior and an almost pathological drive to see that we adhered to her plethora of rules. (I'll stop - I swear.) She was a royal PITA but she did teach us vocabulary and spelling. Her husband demanded the same, but taught me to really enjoy American history. He was one of those rare instructors whose enthusiasm for the subject was infectious.
The other reason to spell properly is simple - if you misspell common words or can't write a coherent sentence - you look like a dummy regardless of your real intelligence. Maybe that's old fashioned, but it's unlikely I'll change.
Give yourself a chance. I'm learning to misspell werds and rite with a Oklahoma accent, sorta.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 04:10:57 PM
Why should non-citizen terrorists be given the same rights bestowed on our citizens?
Where does she say non-citizen? Oh right, she doesn't. People who care so deeply for our right don't leave things like that out.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 29, 2010, 07:25:10 AM
Where does she say non-citizen? Oh right, she doesn't. People who care so deeply for our right don't leave things like that out.
One could make a safe assumption that's what she's referring to since 99% of terrorists seem to be foreign nationals, Trog. Nit-pick a Senate candidate and potential POTUS '12 candidate (Palin) all you like if it helps you better justify being a fan of ridiculous liberal policies.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 08:34:52 AM
One could make a safe assumption that's what she's referring to since 99% of terrorists seem to be foreign nationals, Trog. Nit-pick a Senate candidate and potential POTUS '12 candidate (Palin) all you like if it helps you better justify being a fan of ridiculous liberal policies.
I don't know about 99 out of 100. Perhaps 99 out of 100 who get labeled as terrorists. It seems that people who do anything short of using bombs in our own country don't get called terrorists, even if there's an obvious attempt to use fear to force a particular reaction involved. That's one of my big problems with the "terrorist" label. It's essentially meaningless. It's not "terrorist" to burn down (or gun down people in) a house of worship in an attempt to scare the congregants due to their views or their identity, but it is if you blow them up instead. Like fascism, it has come to mean "something I really, really, really, don't like."
Well shame on Miss O'Donnell for not being more specific. Give her twenty whacks er lashes
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 08:34:52 AM
One could make a safe assumption that's what she's referring to since 99% of terrorists seem to be foreign nationals, Trog. Nit-pick a Senate candidate and potential POTUS '12 candidate (Palin) all you like if it helps you better justify being a fan of ridiculous liberal policies.
Most terrorists in other countries are non-US citizens. Most terrorists in the US are US citizens. Remember we have had a US citizen labeled an enemy combatant. Also, have held US citizens in gitmo without due process. I do not find that to be a joke. I agree with a majority of what the tea party says. I just want spending cut, then taxes. Not taxes then spending. Palin is a moron, the constitution is meant for ALL citizens. The government shouldn't be able to take away your citizenship and hold you indefinitely. The government has no right to wiretap US citizens on calls out of the country without a FISA warrant.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 29, 2010, 12:00:48 PM
Most terrorists in other countries are non-US citizens. Most terrorists in the US are US citizens. Remember we have had a US citizen labeled an enemy combatant. Also, have held US citizens in gitmo without due process. I do not find that to be a joke. I agree with a majority of what the tea party says. I just want spending cut, then taxes. Not taxes then spending. Palin is a moron, the constitution is meant for ALL citizens. The government shouldn't be able to take away your citizenship and hold you indefinitely. The government has no right to wiretap US citizens on calls out of the country without a FISA warrant.
I'd say we are pretty much in agreement on fiscal issues. I really don't see tax cuts as being a catalyst for job creation, though in theory if all people have more disposable income, it stands to reason they can consume more. If business owners say tax cuts are what they want and they will create jobs then call their bluff and do it. If there's no substantive growth in a certain amount of time, raise taxes again. More or less what the idea is behind a two year extension on the Bush tax cuts.
Myself and others have said as well that "terrorist" is over-used on other discussions in the past. I took her statement along the lines of the ridiculous notion of wanting to try terrorists in criminal courts of law. As I recall, didn't President Obama actually ratchet up the warrantless tapping? I don't get in too much of a twist over that as I'm law-abiding and would be of zero interest to the feds. I believe as much as the next person in a right to privacy. However, I would assume the only people who are getting tapped are those they have on intel lists. So, I'm not too terribly concerned about how the government gains intelligence which might prevent another 9/11. I'm of the opinion that people aren't randomly put on lists and eavesdropped on. There's generally a good reason the spooks are tuned in.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 01:16:26 PM
I'd say we are pretty much in agreement on fiscal issues. I really don't see tax cuts as being a catalyst for job creation, though in theory if all people have more disposable income, it stands to reason they can consume more. If business owners say tax cuts are what they want and they will create jobs then call their bluff and do it. If there's no substantive growth in a certain amount of time, raise taxes again. More or less what the idea is behind a two year extension on the Bush tax cuts.
Myself and others have said as well that "terrorist" is over-used on other discussions in the past. I took her statement along the lines of the ridiculous notion of wanting to try terrorists in criminal courts of law. As I recall, didn't President Obama actually ratchet up the warrantless tapping? I don't get in too much of a twist over that as I'm law-abiding and would be of zero interest to the feds. I believe as much as the next person in a right to privacy. However, I would assume the only people who are getting tapped are those they have on intel lists. So, I'm not too terribly concerned about how the government gains intelligence which might prevent another 9/11. I'm of the opinion that people aren't randomly put on lists and eavesdropped on. There's generally a good reason the spooks are tuned in.
People are randomly put on the no fly list. I don't know why people wouldn't randomly get listened to. Seriously, if it is actually important, get a wire tap. They can go after they listen and get a warrant. At least then there is a paper trail. My issue is, what happens when you have the government wiretapping and destroying good presidential candidates? They wiretapped MLK Jr to try to find something to use against him. The whole concept that if the government has a power they are going to abuse it. I at least thought, was supposed to be the major reason that we wanted to limit the government's power and bring it back. Many republicans have the "i am not doing anything wrong". Thats not the way the constitution works. I don't break any major laws so I won't be deemed a terrorist. All it takes is a few papers signed it doesn't take a reason. You just have to piss off the wrong person (speaking out against the government). Is Obama gong to do this? No. Was Bush? No... Is somebody in 50 years? No clue, but why even give them the chance to abuse it.
Now Trogdor is on the list.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 29, 2010, 01:35:17 PM
Now Trogdor is on the list.
Well luckily Michael, since there are no warrants there is no actual "list".
Remind me to video when the gubmint takes down Trogdor.