Tea Party Convention Opens [Archive]

rdowns

Feb 5, 2010, 02:16 PM

Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/05/tancredo-opens-tea-party-convention-with-a-bang/?fbid=y-TDYvkU1GM)

Can't believe Palin has hitched her wagon to these racists.

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN) – Tom Tancredo opened what's being billed as the first Tea Party Convention with a bang.

The former congressman from Colorado and 2008 Republican presidential candidate blasted President Obama, saying "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Tancredo made his comments as he gave the kickoff speech for the convention, which is being held at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville.

Tancredo's speech received polite applause among the 600 attendees at the convention.

"So the race for America is on right now. The president and his left-wing allies in Congress are going to look at every opportunity to destroy the Constitution before we have a chance to save it. So put your running shoes on. Because I'll tell you, I've heard we need a revolution. My friends, we already had it. We lost. I mean, what happened to us in that last election was a revolution," said Tancredo, discussing the 2008 presidential contest.

Tancredo also slammed that election's Republican presidential nominee, saying "thank God John McCain lost the election."

The former congressman known for his strong opposition to illegal immigration also attacked "the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don't have the same idea about America as we do."

A spokesman for the Tea Party Nation, the group that organized the convention, said Tancredo's speech may provide some red meat but termed it problematic.

"It doesn't further the dialogue," said Mark Skoda, a businessman and founder of the Memphis Tea Party, who is also serving as spokesman for the convention.

Tancredo ended his speech telling the crowd that "this is our country" and urged them "to take it back."

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:22 PM

Curious as to where the racist remark came from, is it because he is against illegal immigrants (I am too)?

leekohler

Feb 5, 2010, 02:25 PM

Curious as to where the racist remark came from, is it because he is against illegal immigrants (I am too)?

I'm not really seeing it here either. I'm also strongly against illegal immigration.

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 02:29 PM

^^^^The "can't spell vote or say it on english" is pretty xenophobic and subjectively bordering on racist. As is the multicultural remarks.... Neither necessarily have anything to do with illegal immigrants. It's demonising people based on their ability to speak English and hence race.

The former congressman from Colorado and 2008 Republican presidential candidate blasted President Obama, saying "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English
This is rich given I've a healthy sized folder on my HDD of teabagger signs with hilariously terrible spelling :D!

put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."Haha are they still running with this one :D!

Gelfin

Feb 5, 2010, 02:29 PM

This is going to be hilarious in exactly the same way as a San Francisco protest march, and for exactly the same reason.

mcrain

Feb 5, 2010, 02:29 PM

I'm not really seeing it here either. I'm also strongly against illegal immigration.

Me too. Also think we should change the citizen rules to only allow citizenship for children born of people who are here legally, even if only visiting.

Do you think the racist idea comes from the comment about not being able to read? Or the ITN type insistance on using his middle name?

Lord Blackadder

Feb 5, 2010, 02:30 PM

Curious as to where the racist remark came from, is it because he is against illegal immigrants (I am too)?

Perhaps not racist, but certainly xenophobic. What are they trying to accomplish? I also don't buy their anti-illegal immigration stance. It's really a poorly concealed anti-immigration stance.

And what the heck is so significant about Obama's middle name? William Tecumseh Sherman's middle name is Algonquian, but he had nothing to do with Native Americans as far as I'm aware. It's pure idiocy.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:32 PM

I was just curious whether it was part of this speech that was racist, or whether it was from previous signs etc. I could see the later, the tea party shouldn't have allowed those people to rally with them, the fact that they do is pretty damning.

leekohler

Feb 5, 2010, 02:33 PM

^^^^although you'll no doubt claim otherwise the "can't spell vote or say it on english" is pretty xenophobic and subjectively bordering on racist. As is the multicultural remarks....

Ah... that is true.

Haha are they still running with this one :D!

Of course they are- they have nothing else. What I find even funnier is that there's a whole 600 of 'em. Ooooooohhh...I'm scared...:)

Gelfin

Feb 5, 2010, 02:36 PM

Perhaps not racist, but certainly xenophobic. What are they trying to accomplish? I also don't buy their anti-illegal immigration stance. It's really a poorly concealed anti-immigration stance.

Supporting immigration reform does not require xenophobia. I absolutely support making laws that do what we want, and strictly enforcing the laws we make. My problem is that America's toothless immigration system seems to be kept so intentionally because illegal immigrants form the powerless servant underclass we otherwise lost when we outlawed slavery. Asking who's going to pick your strawberries in 2010 isn't that much different from asking who's going to pick your cotton in 1850.

I am quite confident that isn't what the "Tea Party" has in mind.

Zyniker

Feb 5, 2010, 02:37 PM

Perhaps not racist, but certainly xenophobic. What are they trying to accomplish? I also don't buy their anti-illegal immigration stance. It's really a poorly concealed anti-immigration stance.
...

A certain percentage of the population still believes in the Rule of Law. It is neither racist nor xenophobic to take a stand against illegal immigration. It is simply an assertion that one believes in the Law and that it should be followed and upheld.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:37 PM

Perhaps not racist, but certainly xenophobic. What are they trying to accomplish? I also don't buy their anti-illegal immigration stance. It's really a poorly concealed anti-immigration stance.

And what the heck is so significant about Obama's middle name? William Tecumseh Sherman's middle name is Algonquian, but he had nothing to do with Native Americans as far as I'm aware.

If you count the illegals we take on every year we probably have the highest amount of immigration. Canada is officially the highest.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:38 PM

Supporting immigration reform does not require xenophobia. I absolutely support making laws that do what we want, and strictly enforcing the laws we make. My problem is that America's toothless immigration system seems to be kept so intentionally because illegal immigrants form the powerless servant underclass we otherwise lost when we outlawed slavery. Asking who's going to pick your strawberries in 2010 isn't that much different from asking who's going to pick your cotton in 1850.

I am quite confident that isn't what the "Tea Party" has in mind.

I can't believe you just compared slavery to people who came here illegally and are free to go back to their native country. :mad:

rdowns

Feb 5, 2010, 02:41 PM

"people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/scanner/2009/03/01-07/moran.jpg

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 02:42 PM

Some think it's an effective strategy to employ the word "racist" to movements that we oppose. I'm not buying the racist angle here.

Zyniker

Feb 5, 2010, 02:43 PM

I can't believe you just compared slavery to people who came here illegally and are free to go back to their native country. :mad:

I can. Logic is irrelevant to many whose beliefs are ideology sans reason or warrant. While there is a valid comparison between wage slavery and actual slavery, they are not the same. Further, it is largely not the domain of the government to eradicate the latter.

Gelfin

Feb 5, 2010, 02:45 PM

I can't believe you just compared slavery to people who came here illegally and are free to go back to their native country. :mad:

A veneer of freedom that accomplishes the same end as slavery while staying technically on the lawful side of the thirteenth amendment. Anti-abolitionists salved their consciences by speculating how much worse off slaves would have been in Africa as well.

It's certainly less morally offensive than outright slavery, but it falls on the same spectrum of human exploitation.

mcrain

Feb 5, 2010, 02:46 PM

Some think it's an effective strategy to employ the word "racist" to movements that we oppose. I'm not buying the racist angle here.

The "can't spell vote" comment came after he said "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

Can you spell Jim Crowe laws? Yep, the 'ol literacy tests that prevented blacks from voting.

No, there's nothing racist about that.

iShater

Feb 5, 2010, 02:47 PM

Illegal immigrants can't vote you morons. :rolleyes:

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 02:47 PM

Some think it's an effective strategy to employ the word "racist" to movements that we oppose. I'm not buying the racist angle here.
Can we take it you agree with demonising Americans whom can't speak English and that multiculturalism is a negative influence on america that requires "taking back"?

Lord Blackadder

Feb 5, 2010, 02:49 PM

A certain percentage of the population still believes in the Rule of Law. It is neither racist nor xenophobic to take a stand against illegal immigration. It is simply an assertion that one believes in the Law and that it should be followed and upheld.

You are right, in principle. But look at the subtext in the speech linked above: look at the way immigrants are described and characterized.

I strongly support the notion that people should not be able to come here willy-nilly and claim the benefits of citizenship. But FAR too many of the loudest anti-immigration voices are spouting a poorly concealed form of xenophobia. It's there for all to see.

If you count the illegals we take on every year we probably have the highest amount of immigration. Canada is officially the highest.

I have never said the system doesn't need reform, I think it is an important issue. But I refuse to stand up and be counted with the wailers and gnashers of teeth who form vigilante parties to shoot Mexicans they find roaming around the border, illegal or not. It's happening. These Tea-Baggers are incendiaries with nothing positive to offer on any issue.

I can't believe you just compared slavery to people who came here illegally and are free to go back to their native country. :mad:

There is such a thing as de facto economic slavery, and there is something to be said for the notion that there are individuals, groups and businesses who benefit from the availability of cheap immigrant labor of dubious legality. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Zyniker

Feb 5, 2010, 02:51 PM

The "can't spell vote" comment came after he said "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

Can you spell Jim Crowe laws? Yep, the 'ol literacy tests that prevented blacks from voting.

No, there's nothing racist about that.

While the aim of the individuals who supported Jim Crow laws was, in large part, racist, that is an irrelevant comparison to the modern day. Education is much more widely available in our era and literacy is nearing 100%. With that in mind, a requirement of literacy is neither racist nor an undue burden on the individual voter.
To vote in the US, one should be able to read and understand English.

Arran

Feb 5, 2010, 02:52 PM

I don't know why, but whenever I hear "Tea Party" I think of genteel little old ladies sipping their afternoon tea, or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzEBLa3PPk :)

Those chimps are too funny!

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:53 PM

A veneer of freedom that accomplishes the same end as slavery while staying technically on the lawful side of the thirteenth amendment. Anti-abolitionists salved their consciences by speculating how much worse off slaves would have been in Africa as well.

It's certainly less morally offensive than outright slavery, but it falls on the same spectrum of human exploitation.

I don't think it does at all, if I broke the law and entered Canada and had to work under the table, it would be pretty weird for me to consider it slavery.

Zyniker

Feb 5, 2010, 02:53 PM

Illegal immigrants can't vote you morons. :rolleyes:

Illegal immigrants cannot vote legally; that is vastly different from simply "cannot vote."

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 02:54 PM

Illegal immigrants can't vote you morons. :rolleyes:

They steal SS numbers to work sometimes, I don't see why they couldn't also use them to vote.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 5, 2010, 02:59 PM

They steal SS numbers to work sometimes, I don't see why they couldn't also use them to vote.

Well, for one thing, I bet there are more illiterate, stupid people, 100% American, who vote nowadays than there are illegals sneaking into the system. That doesn't justify it, but the Tea-Baggers are showing a total lack of perspective.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 03:01 PM

Well, for one thing, I bet there are more illiterate, stupid people, 100% American, who vote nowadays than there are illegals sneaking into the system. That doesn't justify it, but the Tea-Baggers are showing a total lack of perspective.

As Jon Stewart put it (paraphrased), we sent 150,000 troops over to the ME so that we could stop 10 people building a bomb in a basement. We do everything overkill.

mcrain

Feb 5, 2010, 03:01 PM

While the aim of the individuals who supported Jim Crow laws was, in large part, racist, that is an irrelevant comparison to the modern day. Education is much more widely available in our era and literacy is nearing 100%. With that in mind, a requirement of literacy is neither racist nor an undue burden on the individual voter.
To vote in the US, one should be able to read and understand English.

I'm not making the comparison! Tancredo made the statement in Tennessee in front of a crowd of people who can't stand the President, and many of whom, like it or not, don't like his color.

Do you really think Tancredo was calling for a literacy test, or do you think he was insulting the "type" of people who would vote for President Obama?

I mean, if he was really calling for a literacy test, don't you think he might have done it in a different way?

So, because it wasn't likely that he was literally calling for a literacy test, he was giving the speech to that particular crowd, and, he was using the phrase as an insult... what do you really think his intent was?

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 03:20 PM

Can we take it you agree with demonising Americans whom can't speak English and that multiculturalism is a negative influence on america that requires "taking back"?

No, you may not be so presumptuous. My wife came to this country (legally) and still has difficulty with written English. I'd say that demonizing people like her and marrying her are irreconcilable and I would have a very crappy marriage if that were so. I think you would have more credibility here if you didn't lump everyone in the same "racist" category. Have a more broad view and I'll take you seriously.

edit: I'll also add that she worked damn hard at becoming a citizen the legal way, and is pissed that others are demanding her benefits without the same hard work. How fair is that?

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 03:25 PM

No, you may not be so presumptuous. My wife came to this country (legally) and still has difficulty with written English. I'd say that demonizing people like her and marrying her are irreconcilable and I would have a very crappy marriage if that were so. I think you would have more credibility here if you didn't lump everyone in the same "racist" category. Have a more broad view and I'll take you seriously.
Is this post directed at me :confused:?

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 03:27 PM

Is this post directed at me :confused:?

Is this a trick question?

Queso

Feb 5, 2010, 03:29 PM

Blaming "others" for your own failings is a sure sign of a people in terminal decline. Get used to the noise chaps, this will get louder before it dies away.

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 03:33 PM

Is this a trick question?
In that case you'd do well to go back and read my posts. I haven't lumped anyone into a racist category let alone everyone :confused:.

I am befuddled however. You claimed you don't see anything racist in the comments in the article in the OP. Yet when I asked if you agree with those views you think that I'm presuming you are a racist..... Which one is it? Are the comments racist or not :confused:?

leekohler

Feb 5, 2010, 03:33 PM

Blaming "others" for your own failings is a sure sign of a people in terminal decline. Get used to the noise chaps, this will get louder before it dies away.

It was like this during Clinton too. The wackos and white supremacist groups came out of the woodwork. This is worse this time around though.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 03:35 PM

Blaming "others" for your own failings is a sure sign of a people in terminal decline.

I'll agree with this. Sad, because I see it too often.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 03:37 PM

I don't think it does at all, if I broke the law and entered Canada and had to work under the table, it would be pretty weird for me to consider it slavery.Depends what you were up to under the table I suppose.

Arran

Feb 5, 2010, 03:42 PM

Depends what you were up to under the table I suppose.

Did you make a risque joke, or do i have a filthy mind? :confused:

:D

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 03:50 PM

In that case you'd do well to go back and read my posts. I haven't lumped anyone into a racist category let alone everyone.

Nor have you answered my question. Are non-English speakers less Americans or something negative when it comes to voting? Do you think multiculturalism is a negative? I'm interested in your explanation.

Blather. Ok, I'll play your game.

If you come to this country, do it legally. I don't care so much about the language as I care about our laws.

With that, though, I do believe if you are going to a foreign country (legally), you would be wise to learn the basics of the official language. I travel enough to Japan and it would be stupid for me to not to learn a little of the language. If I were to move there, I should learn a little more.

Not learning the language doesn't make you less of a person. It is, however, indicative of how much you want to invest yourself into that country. If you're unwilling to invest much, don't vote.

No, multiculturalism is not negative. As I said, to marry into another culture as I have doesn't reconcile well if you're opposed to multiculturalism. My life is more rich as a result of embracing it.

You didn't say it, but it appeared to me that you were implying racism. I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 04:10 PM

Did you make a risque joke, or do i have a filthy mind? :confused:

:DProbably both...

IntheNet

Feb 5, 2010, 04:15 PM

Can't believe Palin has hitched her wagon to these racists.

It would help here if the "racist" label was not used, especially toward peaceful gatherings of Americans; I believe that is clearly defined as democracy. Insofar as former Congressman Tom Tancredo's involvement in this first Tea Party Convention, I believe he strongly stands against illegal immigration (emphasis upon the illegal part) since most Americans, indeed Mr. Tancredo and all Tea Party supporters, fully support legal immigration.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 04:15 PM

If you come to this country, do it legally.This position would sit better if the entry requirements for those whom your compatriots seem quite willing to employ for jobs which nobody else will do were not so onerous as to practically preclude legal entry.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 04:17 PM

It would help here if the "racist" label was not used, especially toward peaceful gatherings of AmericansTheir alleged peacefulness is utterly irrelevant, loaded and coded. A triple whammy. Well done.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 04:19 PM

This position would sit better if the entry requirements for those whom your compatriots seem quite willing to employ for jobs which nobody else will do were not so onerous as to practically preclude legal entry.

Good point. Let's change the law instead of encouraging people to break it.

mcrain

Feb 5, 2010, 04:26 PM

It would help here if the "racist" label was not used, especially toward peaceful gatherings of Americans; I believe that is clearly defined as democracy. Insofar as former Congressman Tom Tancredo's involvement in this first Tea Party Convention, I believe he strongly stands against illegal immigration (emphasis upon the illegal part) since most Americans, indeed Mr. Tancredo and all Tea Party supporters, fully support legal immigration.

Peaceful gathering of Americans? A 2 second google search will lead you to a hundred photos of people at tea party conventions carrying guns.

Here's one. http://danzview.blogspot.com/2009/11/tea-party-symbols-god-guns-old-glory.html

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 04:35 PM

Peaceful gathering of Americans? A 2 second google search will lead you to a hundred photos of people at tea party conventions carrying guns.

Here's one. http://danzview.blogspot.com/2009/11/tea-party-symbols-god-guns-old-glory.html

Gun carrying police officers are often referred to as "Peace Officers". Not that I think carrying guns to an event like this is smart. Kinda stupid if you ask me. These guys were stupid, while peaceful, I think.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 04:36 PM

These guys were stupid, while peaceful, I think."Threatening" is probably the word you're looking for.

Peterkro

Feb 5, 2010, 04:38 PM

Canada is officially the highest.

Not true several countries rank higher on a per capita basis including Australia.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 04:39 PM

"Threatening" is probably the word you're looking for.

I'm not sure threatening was the intent... but I think they're stupid to believe it wouldn't be seen that way, for sure. Pure morons.

Peterkro

Feb 5, 2010, 04:47 PM

Pure morons.

Get with the program they're morans.

IntheNet

Feb 5, 2010, 04:49 PM

Peaceful gathering of Americans? A 2 second google search will lead you to a hundred photos of people at tea party conventions carrying guns.

That pesky Second Amendment to the United States Constitution bothers you doesn't it? Imagine; thousands of regular Americans, peacefully gathering and well armed... sounds positively revolutionary... Oh wait...

Zombie Acorn

Feb 5, 2010, 04:50 PM

Not true several countries rank higher on a per capita basis including Australia.

That stat was from 04.

Peterkro

Feb 5, 2010, 04:54 PM

That stat was from 04.

Yes I know but it was according to Canada's Immigration Program and I'm pretty sure it wasn't true then, for instance the United Arab Emirates rates would have been very high even then.

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 04:58 PM

No, multiculturalism is not negative. As I said, to marry into another culture as I have doesn't reconcile well if you're opposed to multiculturalism. My life is more rich as a result of embracing it.

You didn't say it, but it appeared to me that you were implying racism. I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you.
I think you've still missed the point. They weren't my words. They were the words of the individual in the OP that made those implications. You claimed that you didn't find them racist. But it appears that you actually do. I made no comment again immigration.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 04:59 PM

Get with the program they're morans.

Ooops. Might get shot if I got that one wrong again... :D

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 05:09 PM

You didn't say it, but it appeared to me that you were implying racism. I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you.

I think you've still missed the point. They weren't my words. They were the words of the individual in the OP that made those implications. You claimed that you didn't find them racist. But it appears that you actually do. I made no comment again immigration.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I disagree with the comment on racism by the OP.

I disagreed with what I thought you were implying as racist. I've apologized for the misunderstanding. You may whip me now.

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 05:15 PM

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I disagree with the comment on racism by the OP.
But you've made it clear that you do find the implication that non-English speakers are somehow less capable and that multiculturalism is a negative influence on America racist :confused:.

Why do you disagree with rdowns?

I disagreed with what I thought you were implying as racist. I've apologized for the misunderstanding. You may whip me now.
That won't be necessary. My wife is watching I will send you a pm to organise this :)!

Lord Blackadder

Feb 5, 2010, 05:16 PM

That pesky Second Amendment to the United States Constitution bothers you doesn't it? Imagine; thousands of regular Americans, peacefully gathering and well armed... sounds positively revolutionary... Oh wait...

I'm not afraid of a few rednecks running around with guns. If more people ignored them they'd stop doing it anyway. It only works because people are automatically terrified.

Gelfin

Feb 5, 2010, 05:20 PM

I don't think it does at all, if I broke the law and entered Canada and had to work under the table, it would be pretty weird for me to consider it slavery.

You are still overstating my position.

Nevertheless, if the Canadians made political sport of demonizing you on one hand, while only halfheartedly enforcing their immigration laws, implementing a de facto policy that encouraged Canadians to ruthlessly exploit you for your labor and yet lay all the blame upon you for putting yourself in a position to be exploited, and despite a lot of official noisemaking, most of it geared to either demonizing you further or legalizing your underclass status, never really changed anything about the status quo, it would not be weird at all to question the ethics of convenience by which Canadians justify inventing a gray-market loophole to their oft-touted Canadian ideals of freedom and egalitarianism.

leekohler

Feb 5, 2010, 05:23 PM

I'm not afraid of a few rednecks running around with guns. If more people ignored them they'd stop doing it anyway. It only works because people are automatically terrified.

And don't you own guns yourself anyway?

ITN- you better get your facts straight before you go off on your rants. I am also a huge supporter of gun ownership rights. But I also know better than to take guns to a protest. Not the best idea.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 05:25 PM

But you've made it clear that you do find the implication that non-English speakers are somehow less capable and that multiculturalism is a negative influence on America racist :confused:.

Why do you disagree with rdowns?

You're putting words in my mouth. Why are you so eager to make me out to be (what I would call) a racist?

Perhaps I'm just a poor communicator, and for that, I am sorry.

Not learning the language doesn't make you less of a person. It is, however, indicative of how much you want to invest yourself into that country. If you're unwilling to invest much, don't vote.

No, multiculturalism is not negative. As I said, to marry into another culture as I have doesn't reconcile well if you're opposed to multiculturalism. My life is more rich as a result of embracing it.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 05:27 PM

Perhaps I'm just a poor communicator, and for that, I am sorry.It's OK, after all "not learning the language doesn't make you less of a person". ;)

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 05:29 PM

It's OK, after all "not learning the language doesn't make you less of a person". ;)

:D Good catch... I missed it.

.Andy

Feb 5, 2010, 05:33 PM

You're putting words in my mouth. Why are you so eager to make me out to be (what I would call) a racist?I don't think you are racist nor have said that you are. All I've done is ask if you disagree with the individual that rdowns quoted in the OP who made those implications. I did so because you claimed you couldn't see the racism.

As I said in my first post I consider the implications by Tancredo that non-English speakers are less capable Americans and that multiculturalism is a negative something that is most definitely xenophobic and subjectively it's not a stretch to call such comments racist. And I think you've made your position clear - you think those comments are racist.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 05:39 PM

I don't think you are racist nor have said that you are. All I've done is ask if you disagree with the individual that rdowns quoted in the OP who made those implications. I did so because you claimed you couldn't see the racism.

As I said in my first post I consider the implications by Tancredo that non-English speakers are less capable Americans and that multiculturalism is a negative something that is most definitely xenophobic and subjectively it's not a stretch to call such comments racist. And I think you've made your position clear - you think those comments are racist.

Big Sigh... :rolleyes:

IntheNet

Feb 5, 2010, 05:56 PM

I'm not afraid of a few rednecks running around with guns. If more people ignored them they'd stop doing it anyway. It only works because people are automatically terrified.

Expressing our First Amendment rights, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, is what we do in open discussion and speech; I'm sure you, as am I, are thankful for that right. Many in the world do not have such rights. Same for Second Amendment rights and American citizens at Tea Party gatherings; being legally armed is not something "a few rednecks" do (I'll overlook the perceived slur) but legal citizens do, as a right in our Bill of Rights. In fact, in the two large Tea Party gatherings I attended here in the Old Dominion, I saw far more women armed than men, and many of those young women (housewives and working women for example). None were or could be assumed what you called "a few rednecks" but instead working Americans from all walks of life. The fact that they were armed and legally so an expression of freedom.

ITN- you better get your facts straight before you go off on your rants. I am also a huge supporter of gun ownership rights. But I also know better than to take guns to a protest. Not the best idea.

You're absolutely right... not the best idea for all. In some places such open carry is illegal. Being armed at a lawful gathering where the law allows such is not for all. Local laws prevail. Matter of fact most do not have arms at larger urban rallies... in gatherings in inner cities (such as the District) local laws would certainly prevent such open expression and that's not what I was referencing. However many gatherings in rural areas allow open carry; concealed carry would, of course, require concealed weapon permits as authorized by the state. As I said, some take advantage of laws allowing open carry and I have never seen or heard of an incident resulting. As mentioned, I see it as an expression of freedom.

Peterkro

Feb 5, 2010, 06:00 PM

Expressing our First Amendment rights, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, is what we do in open discussion and speech; I'm sure you, as am I, are thankful for that right. Many in the world do not have such rights. Same for Second Amendment rights and American citizens at Tea Party gatherings; being legally armed is not something "a few rednecks" do (I'll overlook the perceived slur) but legal citizens do, as a right in our Bill of Rights. In fact, in the two large Tea Party gatherings I attended here in the Old Dominion, I saw far more women armed than men, and many of those young women (housewives and working women for example). None were or could be assumed what you called "a few rednecks" but instead working Americans from all walks of life. The fact that they were armed and legally so an expression of freedom.

Yet oddly enough a black person outside a polling booth with a night stick is widely reported in the right wing media as "intimidating" voters.

skunk

Feb 5, 2010, 06:01 PM

Alas, poor IntheNet, I knew him well...

Eraserhead

Feb 5, 2010, 06:03 PM

Yet oddly enough a black person outside a polling booth with a night stick is widely reported in the right wing media as "intimidating" voters.

Night sticks are more dangerous than guns :p.

I am also a huge supporter of gun ownership rights. But I also know better than to take guns to a protest. Not the best idea.

That's a bit of an understatement. Taking a gun to a protest risks you getting shot if it starts getting rowdy.

Its like taking a gun to a nightclub.

Macaddicttt

Feb 5, 2010, 06:05 PM

If you come to this country, do it legally. I don't care so much about the language as I care about our laws.

So you're the kind of person who would have turned in a runaway slave because laws are so important to you, you have to follow them no matter what even if you know it's wrong?

I know I'm a little hyperbolic here, but my point is that no one is against the rule of law, but it's easy to hide racism or xenophobia behind some principle of "rule of law." I have a feeling that the teabaggers wouldn't be so in favor of the rule of law if the law were open immigration for all.

scottness

Feb 5, 2010, 06:32 PM

So you're the kind of person who would have turned in a runaway slave because laws are so important to you, you have to follow them no matter what even if you know it's wrong?

I know I'm a little hyperbolic here, but my point is that no one is against the rule of law, but it's easy to hide racism or xenophobia behind some principle of "rule of law." I have a feeling that the teabaggers wouldn't be so in favor of the rule of law if the law were open immigration for all.

Great points. Yes, it's a bit hyperbolic, but I'll concede I'm not opposed to amnesty if lives are at risk.

Rt&Dzine

Feb 5, 2010, 07:55 PM

"the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don't have the same idea about America as we do."

Would all you "foreigners" whose families came to my country after the 1700s please go back to where you came from. You're messing with the real America. :rolleyes:

Lord Blackadder

Feb 5, 2010, 08:14 PM

Just to reiterate from previous threads, I'm a second generation American on my fathers' side. Back in the 20's that half of my family were Slavic immigrants, people that "real" Americans regarded as the scum of the earth, polluters of Democracy and disciples of Socialism. Whatever.

How many generations of "scum" will come to this country, settle in and then rail against a new wave of immigrants? We are such hypocrites aren't we?

And don't you own guns yourself anyway?

Yes, though I've never taken them to a political event. ;)

ITN- you better get your facts straight before you go off on your rants. I am also a huge supporter of gun ownership rights. But I also know better than to take guns to a protest. Not the best idea.

All the Tea-Baggers are doing by bringing firearms to their protests is to harden the opinions of anti-gun activists and muddying the waters all around. It's stupid, irresponsible and it is a violation of the open carry law in spirit if not in actual fact. They are truly a bunch of idiots.

Expressing our First Amendment rights, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, is what we do in open discussion and speech; I'm sure you, as am I, are thankful for that right. Many in the world do not have such rights. Same for Second Amendment rights and American citizens at Tea Party gatherings; being legally armed is not something "a few rednecks" do (I'll overlook the perceived slur) but legal citizens do, as a right in our Bill of Rights. In fact, in the two large Tea Party gatherings I attended here in the Old Dominion, I saw far more women armed than men, and many of those young women (housewives and working women for example). None were or could be assumed what you called "a few rednecks" but instead working Americans from all walks of life. The fact that they were armed and legally so an expression of freedom.

And just what precisely are they planning to do with those weapons anyway? They are hurting their cause, not helping it. The quickest way to irreparably damage the hope of compromise in the firearms debate is to wave guns in peoples' faces. The fools who do that might get a charge out of it but they are clearly not looking at the big picture. What they ARE doing is showing that that they have no interest in compromising, or showing restraint.

There are better ways to express rights. You're afraid that some Uncle Sam is going to kick down your door and take the guns away someday. I can pretty much guarantee that armed rallies are the quickest way to shoot yourselves in the foot. Metaphorically speaking. I happen not to be freaked out by the armed rallies, and in a small way I understand their logic. But all I can do is shake my head, it is incredibly bad PR, very counterproductive. And it is delicious fodder for the "liberal media" you so hate.

hulugu

Feb 6, 2010, 02:53 AM

They steal SS numbers to work sometimes, I don't see why they couldn't also use them to vote.

Well, there's very little evidence to suggest that illegal immigrants ever have voted in any significant number. Why would they? It's yet another brush with authority to receive some nebulous benefit.

Certainly, there will be some anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to find any significant survey or numbers from anyone that suggests migrants vote at all, much less without the legal status to do so.

Additionally, the inclusion of new Voter ID laws has merely added to a speed-bump for a nefarious vote and ID stealing criminal, while requiring voters to carry ID and utility bills to the polling station.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 6, 2010, 03:41 AM

Would all you "foreigners" whose families came to my country after the 1700s please go back to where you came from. You're messing with the real America. :rolleyes:

Ill be back within the year thank god. It will be nice to live somewhere that politics come second.

Tower-Union

Feb 6, 2010, 08:43 AM

Retracted.

Ugg

Feb 6, 2010, 09:08 AM

Well, there's very little evidence to suggest that illegal immigrants ever have voted in any significant number. Why would they? It's yet another brush with authority to receive some nebulous benefit.

Certainly, there will be some anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to find any significant survey or numbers from anyone that suggests migrants vote at all, much less without the legal status to do so.

Additionally, the inclusion of new Voter ID laws has merely added to a speed-bump for a nefarious vote and ID stealing criminal, while requiring voters to carry ID and utility bills to the polling station.

I'll bet that more family pets are registered to vote than illegal immigrants.

freeny

Feb 6, 2010, 10:51 AM

Teabaggers will be the new KKK.

Thomas Veil

Feb 6, 2010, 11:29 AM

I don't know about the new KKK, but I certainly see them as a threat to America.

Think about this: Osama bin Laden destroyed buildings and killed people, but the government continued to function, however brokenly. The Tea Party idjits (and I include the Becks and Limbaughs and other dunderheads that give them aid and comfort) are poisoning the political process in this country. Their primary reason for being is to invent lies about death camps, "socialism", etc.; to incite hatred and polarization; and in general to do as much as they can to grind Congress to a halt. Hell, that's something even al-Qaeda can't do!

freeny

Feb 6, 2010, 11:36 AM

IntheNet

Feb 6, 2010, 02:39 PM

I don't know about the new KKK, but I certainly see them as a threat to America.

If this new "America" you're advocating is a leftist socialist order with back-breaking new taxes on its citizenry, incredible government deficits, and a progressive cultural secular outlook, then yes the Tea Party movement is a threat to your new America. However, if you're a supporter of traditional American values, balanced budget, and a government that listens to its citizens then the Tea Party movement is for you and yours and represents the Founding Fathers and their values.

NT1440

Feb 6, 2010, 02:48 PM

If this new "America" you're advocating is a leftist socialist order with back-breaking new taxes on its citizenry

So InTheNet, tell me more about these "back breaking" taxes that are going into effect. I'd love to hear about them.

leekohler

Feb 6, 2010, 03:09 PM

So InTheNet, tell me more about these "back breaking" taxes that are going into effect. I'd love to hear about them.

They're a fantasy they made up to use against Obama. There is no leftist socialist agenda.

beatzfreak

Feb 6, 2010, 03:14 PM

...traditional American values, balanced budget, and a government that listens to its citizens...

Sound like the Clinton years. DADT, DOMA, balanced budget

NT1440

Feb 6, 2010, 03:16 PM

They're a fantasy they made up to use against Obama. There is no leftist socialist agenda.

I know Lee, I just love seeing what he comes back with.

leekohler

Feb 6, 2010, 03:38 PM

I know Lee, I just love seeing what he comes back with.

Well, now we all know you're a masochist. :)

Thomas Veil

Feb 6, 2010, 04:17 PM

If this new "America" you're advocating is a leftist socialist order with back-breaking new taxes on its citizenry, incredible government deficits, and a progressive cultural secular outlook, then yes the Tea Party movement is a threat to your new America. However, if you're a supporter of traditional American values, balanced budget, and a government that listens to its citizens then the Tea Party movement is for you and yours and represents the Founding Fathers and their values.I just had to highlight the parts of your post that were either Newspeak or had nothing to do with reality. As you can see, they comprise roughly 50% of your post.

I said nothing about a "new" America. I want government to listen to its citizens -- all its citizens, not just a radical right splinter that thinks it represents the citizens. Don't try to blame Obama and liberals for the deficit -- deregulation-infatuated conservatives drove the economy off a cliff and forced the government to take action. Your leftist/socialist/back-breaking comment is a fantasy, and the tea party certainly cannot claim ownership of the Founding Fathers or their values. The FF were independent-thinking leftists, not brainwashed righties.

Terrorists to the democratic process?To a large degree, yes, there's a parallel.

The tea party core group -- imbued with religious fervor, a warped view of America, plenty of anger and a desire to impose the will of a disproportionately small bunch on a vastly larger group -- yeah, that does resemble terrorism.

They are, however, convenient and willing dupes of the larger right wing machine, the one which buys and sells Congressmen (Republicans and Democrats alike, to be fair). This larger bunch of conservatives more resembles organized crime. But they're clearly using the tea party bunch to help stop anything resembling reform.

What's both ironic and sad is that I'm sure there are some good people among the bad spellers and drooling Beck viewers in the tea party movement. These are people who are genuinely pissed off at the fact that the government doesn't work for them. Unfortunately, they're mad at the wrong people. Instead of being angry with Fox and hate radio and out of control corporations, Fox and hate radio and out of control corporations are telling them to be mad at Obama.

Which is a little like smokers claiming that cigarette taxes gave them their lung cancer, instead of blaming the cigarettes, the manufacturers or themselves.

freeny

Feb 6, 2010, 04:18 PM

Badandy

Feb 6, 2010, 04:31 PM

... incredible government deficits, and a progressive cultural secular outlook,

What's wrong with a progressive secular outlook? Separation of church and state, IntheNet, we've gone over this dozens of times. Just because the majority of the nation believes in a higher power does not mean that those beliefs should be legislated on the masses and it doesn't mean that we're a Christian nation. Does the fact that more people self identify as Democrats over people who self identify as Republicans mean that the United States is a Democrat nation?

leekohler

Feb 6, 2010, 04:40 PM

bradl

Feb 6, 2010, 04:58 PM

What's wrong with a progressive secular outlook? Separation of church and state, IntheNet, we've gone over this dozens of times. Just because the majority of the nation believes in a higher power does not mean that those beliefs should be legislated on the masses and it doesn't mean that we're a Christian nation. Does the fact that more people self identify as Democrats over people who self identify as Republicans mean that the United States is a Democrat nation?

He thinks it does. And their are far too many people who think like him.

And what makes it worse, is that he and others automatically assume that that higher power is a Christian power. If it isn't, those people get raked over the coals by this 'movement'.

BTW, InTheNet, you never answered my questions (not that you ever will). But ponder this: IF your movement is so 'anti-immigration', what would you say about your ancestors, let alone yourself? If your ancestors were immigrants, and you and your movement is against it, shouldn't you be kicking yourself out of this country?

I won't await your answer; the question is probably too logical for you to comprehend.

BL.

IntheNet

Feb 6, 2010, 05:32 PM

What's wrong with a progressive secular outlook?

In Europe? Nothing. Here, in the nation, we are traditionally religious, and center right conservative. You can disagree but the statistics and demographics will prove you wrong.

Separation of church and state, IntheNet, we've gone over this dozens of times.

Indeed, and each time I tell you the same thing; separation of Church and State is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution; mention of it in a cryptic letter from Jefferson does not policy or law make. All of founding documents are peppered with religious references, stemming from the pilgrims and their Mayflower Compact.

Just because the majority of the nation believes in a higher power does not mean that those beliefs should be legislated on the masses and it doesn't mean that we're a Christian nation.

Ah... yes it does! Matter of fact, you said it better than I. Judeo-Christian belief distinguishes America and always has; from our currency, to our town Churches, to our halls of Congress. The Tea Party Platform proceeds from a firm belief in God.

Does the fact that more people self identify as Democrats over people who self identify as Republicans mean that the United States is a Democrat nation?

Political patties are not the same as religion; I think you know that. I believe in God first and foremost and primary, as do most Americans, long before we believe in the Republican National Committee. Again, the Tea Party Platform begins with a first belief in God. Related:

Palin to address fond Tea Party crowd
By Paul Steinhauser and Pamela Sellers, CNN
February 6, 2010 5:00 p.m. EST
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/06/palin.tea.party/index.html?hpt=C1
"Fremont Brown, a supporter who had "Palin 2012" bumper stickers with him, said Palin is "the right person." "She has fervent heart and she's conservative," added the 59-year-old Brown, who owns a small business in North Carolina. "She was the only one truly qualified with executive experience of the four who ran in 2008. The others were glorified lobbyists."If Palin does make a stab at presidential politics, she'll have a natural following among Tea Party activists, whose grass-roots network is fueled by anger over the growth of the federal government and President Obama's policies.

yg17

Feb 6, 2010, 06:03 PM

2 years ago the right slammed Obama and his supporters because they claimed his supporters thought he was a Messiah and treated him like a celebrity, not a politician. Now the exact same thing is happening with Sarah Palin and the teabaggers and the right doesn't have a problem with it. Just more hypocrisy from the teabaggers.

But now she really is just a celebrity. She's no longer a politician. She's the very definition of an attention whore.

leekohler

Feb 6, 2010, 06:26 PM

Lord Blackadder

Feb 6, 2010, 06:49 PM

Indeed, and each time I tell you the same thing; separation of Church and State is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution; mention of it in a cryptic letter from Jefferson does not policy or law make. All of founding documents are peppered with religious references, stemming from the pilgrims and their Mayflower Compact.

There is theological evidence that God supports the notion of separation of church and state.

Surely you don't suggest that America should be run primarily according to Christian principles?

IntheNet

Feb 6, 2010, 07:04 PM

There is theological evidence that God supports the notion of separation of church and state.

I'm sure you could twist and interpret something in scripture to make such an allegation; not important really. The important and relevant point is that there is nothing in U.S. Constitution to suggest the "separation of Church and States," which was my point.

Surely you don't suggest that America should be run primarily according to Christian principles?

Primarily? No. And indeed there is common sense division between the laws of man and the laws of God. However, the laws of God provide good guidance for man and our nation should rest substantially in His stewardship.

Programming Note: You can catch Sarah Palin's keynote address to National Tea Party Convention on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, PJTV, or Palintv at 9:00 PM EST.

zap2

Feb 6, 2010, 07:13 PM

I think Palin being the speaker for this thing is just hilarious...after in Alaska, she sent people checks based on oil money off tax money...ahh, the evils of Socialism!

Sorry, for me, this Tea Party is ruined by the wackos. Too bad because some of the ideas are actually reasonable.

scottness

Feb 6, 2010, 08:34 PM

Sorry, for me, this Tea Party is ruined by the wackos. Too bad because some of the ideas are actually reasonable.

Yeah, the gun-toting nutjobs and their ilk kinda muddy up the message a bit. They'll have to distance themselves a bit from the weirdos to gain any political ground. Most don't seem to see beyond the weirdos.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 6, 2010, 08:43 PM

I'm sure you could twist and interpret something in scripture to make such an allegation; not important really. The important and relevant point is that there is nothing in U.S. Constitution to suggest the "separation of Church and States," which was my point.

Are you suggesting that the Biblical scripture can be used to support mutually exclusive positions? Fascinating.

The constitution did not explicitly grant any rights or privileges concerning the ownership of firearms - until we amended it. It also declared Africans to be 3/5 of a person for voting purposes. UNtil we did away with that...it never forbade slavery...till we amended it. Women couldn't vote - till we added that part in. It was never intended to be a crystallized document followed to the letter. It requires interpretation, augmentation and amendment. And the Founding Fathers you mentioned earlier have left strong support for the notion of the separation of church and state in their writings. Didn't you say you wanted our government to represent the "Founding Fathers and their values"?

The "Founding Fathers" saw theocracy as being every bit as much a threat to your way of life as a tyrant monarch. This country is best served by a secular government. Religious values permeate our lives, but it is dangerous to allow our government to be explicitly guided by any religion.

The separation between church and state is pivotal to our nation's survival; remove it and the USA as we know it dies. It's as simple as that.

IntheNet

Feb 6, 2010, 09:04 PM

The separation between church and state is pivotal to our nation's survival; remove it and the USA as we know it dies. It's as simple as that.

Remove it? The "separation of church and state" concept you mention never existed in our U.S. Constitution to begin with...

Sarah Palin Goes After Obama at Tea Party Convention
AP - February 06, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/06/sarah-palin-goes-obama-tea-party-convention/
Sarah Palin is predicting a good year for conservative candidates for public office, saying the policies of President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress will be short-lived. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee told the national "tea party" convention in Saturday that a string of recent Republican victories at the polls, including Scott Brown's longshot win in last month's special Senate election in Massachusetts, bodes well for conservative candidates this year.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 6, 2010, 09:10 PM

Remove it? The "separation of church and state" concept you mention never existed in our U.S. Constitution to begin with...

Which is why I presented you with the dilemma that the "values" of the founding fathers are not ensconced solely in the Consitution. Our identity as a nation and our way of life is not restricted only to what is written in the Constitution itself. The Constitution sets out a framework BUT gives us wide discretionary powers.

Do you think there should be clear separation between church and state, or should the US government be an explicit servant of God on Earth?

IntheNet

Feb 6, 2010, 09:29 PM

Which is why I presented you with the dilemma that the "values" of the founding fathers are not ensconced solely in the Consitution. Our identity as a nation and our way of life is not restricted only to what is written in the Constitution itself. The Constitution sets out a framework BUT gives us wide discretionary powers.

Yes it does and the Ten Commandments are not sufficient alone to guide our nation; that said, however, they do form the values bedrock of our primarily Christian nation. The Constitution was written to reflect the Creator's plan just as much as man's.

Do you think there should be clear separation between church and state, or should the US government be an explicit servant of God on Earth?

No and I think I've addressed this point. Moreover, did you not listen to the Tea Party speakers today, including former Governor Palin, who addressed what our government needs to do? The touchstone of "that government governs best that governs least" was invoked. Obama and Co. have recklessly moved to make government far larger and in the process ignored the will of the citizenry that spoke out strongly in Tea Parties across the nation this year. The 2010 elections will take back the House and Senate and the 2012 elections will take back the presidency that has been hijacked from America. The Obama plan of indenturing our youth to permanent government servitude will not stand. That is not God's plan nor should it be the government of the United State's plan.

Rt&Dzine

Feb 6, 2010, 09:31 PM

That is not God's plan nor should it be the government of the United State's plan.

You're speaking for God?

Thomas Veil

Feb 6, 2010, 09:32 PM

yg17

Feb 6, 2010, 09:35 PM

Heard on the news today that this tea party convention drew a grand total of 600 persons, which is fewer then they've had for some of their earlier rallies. Maybe they're catching on.

I think more people will be lining up outside the 5th Avenue Apple Store when the iPad goes on sale.

Saw bits and pieces of her speech. That woman is a ****ing moron. Actually, I take that back. That is an insult to ****ing morons all over the world. There is no comparison and no words to describe just how stupid she is.

zap2

Feb 6, 2010, 11:12 PM

ignored the will of the citizenry that spoke out strongly in Tea Parties across the nation this year.

Well to be fair, he was voted in...and he's done a good job on working to keep his campaign promises....I think it be save to say many of the people attending these events wouldn't support Obama regardless of fiscal policy(I mean, they should be championing Clinton, since he's the most recent President to have a balanced budget. But they won't...just as they didn't call(in large numbers) Bush on his reckless spending

The 2010 elections will take back the House and Senate.
Doubt it.....but lets wait and see in a few months!
the 2012 elections will take back the presidency that has been hijacked from America.
2012 is while off, but saying the presidency was hijacked is clearly untrue. Obama won the vote...by a large amount
That is not God's plan nor should it be the government of the United State's plan.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lord Blackadder

Feb 6, 2010, 11:14 PM

Yes it does and the Ten Commandments are not sufficient alone to guide our nation; that said, however, they do form the values bedrock of our primarily Christian nation. The Constitution was written to reflect the Creator's plan just as much as man's.

There's nothing written in stone about how this nation has to be primarily Christian forever. You may dislike or fear multiculturalism but it's a factor in our growth into a superpower. This is not a Christian nation. It's a secular republic. Washington is not a big church for theocrats to play with.

No and I think I've addressed this point. Moreover, did you not listen to the Tea Party speakers today, including former Governor Palin, who addressed what our government needs to do? The touchstone of "that government governs best that governs least" was invoked.

Tea Partiers have yet to put forth a notion of just how small government is supposed to be. Moreover, the loudest Tea-Party politicians were all Bush supporters once upon a time - and yet Bush has made the government bigger than it ever has been. Yes, that's right: a conservative government has presided over the growth of Federal Bureaucracy to an unprecedented size. Now all the politicians that supported the Bush-Cheney cabal back in 2000 and '04 have backpedaled on their support for him and embraced people like Palin because she's a kooky outsider. Well, she may be an outsider but she's no Mr. Smith. She's got an army of skeletons in her closet.

Obama and Co. have recklessly moved to make government far larger and in the process ignored the will of the citizenry that spoke out strongly in Tea Parties across the nation this year. The 2010 elections will take back the House and Senate and the 2012 elections will take back the presidency that has been hijacked from America. The Obama plan of indenturing our youth to permanent government servitude will not stand. That is not God's plan nor should it be the government of the United State's plan.

Well, for starters, he hasn't. And as for ignoring the "will of the citizenry", I would say not. He has many supporters. People who have weighed his policies against those for the GOP and found merit in them. He hasn't hijacked anything. He was elected. The Republicans had the reins for 8 years and people have reacted against a continuation of those policies.

And just what is God's plan when it comes to government? Since you are implying that you know what it is?

yg17

Feb 6, 2010, 11:26 PM

Yes it does and the Ten Commandments are not sufficient alone to guide our nation; that said, however, they do form the values bedrock of our primarily Christian nation. The Constitution was written to reflect the Creator's plan just as much as man's.
I'm not Christian. Why should I be subject to Christian laws?

. The 2010 elections will take back the House and Senate and the 2012 elections will take back the presidency that has been hijacked from America.

Hijacked? Obama won it fair and square. If you're going to make outlandish claims like that, back it up.

Badandy

Feb 6, 2010, 11:31 PM

Yes it does and the Ten Commandments are not sufficient alone to guide our nation; that said, however, they do form the values bedrock of our primarily Christian nation. The Constitution was written to reflect the Creator's plan just as much as man's.

What? How can you be so sure the Constitution reflects the "plan" of a creator no one knows even exists? If he exists, and that's a huge if, how can you be so sure he has a plan? And even if you're sure he has a plan, are you so arrogant to think you've figured it out? After all, you rely on his mysteriousness to convert non-believers. Which is it? We can't understand his will because he's far too great a power for us to comprehend, or he has a diary where he's written out his hope for humanity's future course with a red crayon?

Sure, our laws share some of the same values as expressed in the ten commandments, but that's like saying people like tea just because I declare tea is good. I don't need the ten commandments telling me that killing someone is bad. The cumulative emotional effect it would have on the victim's family demonstrates such an act's cruelty.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

There is the separation of church and state you were looking for. The government doesn't need to say "We, the United States Government, do hereby declare Christianity as the official religion of the union" to violate the spirit and letter of the first amendment. All it needs to do is make laws that protect a certain group's interest to the detriment of other parties on the basis that the first group subscribes to a certain set of ideals the majority finds appealing.

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 12:06 AM

Heard on the news today that this tea party convention drew a grand total of 600 persons, which is fewer then they've had for some of their earlier rallies. Maybe they're catching on.
It was actually sold out from what I understand. There were only 600 places. To be part of this "grass roots" street cred event one had to pay $549 with an added $349 to have a steak and lobster dinner with Palin.

You must admit it's pretty clever. Parting these people with their money so they can listen to wealthy people tell them how horrible the govt is for taking their money.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=9751718

NT1440

Feb 7, 2010, 02:44 AM

Well, now we all know you're a masochist. :)

Am I? That would explain some things lol

NT1440

Feb 7, 2010, 02:59 AM

yg17

Feb 7, 2010, 09:26 AM

beatzfreak

Feb 7, 2010, 09:35 AM

Sarah uses a handprompter.

Never mind, beaten to the punch.

Looks like she couldn't remember what she stands for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 7, 2010, 09:36 AM

Bible Spice criticized Obama for using a teleprompter when she has a cheat sheet written on her hands!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/7/834684/-HandPrompter-Hilarity:-Read-The-Words-on-Palins-Hand

What a ****ing hypocrite that woman is.I agree and that was pretty funny,Bible Spice:D
The truth here is we have a two party system and both partys are off doing their own thing while sending this nation down the tube. I steel feel very strong that they have built a system that is nothing less then votes for sale or Prostitutes to the corporations that is what our Congress has become. Presidents come and go but all these guys are for the most part bought off.The Corporations buy off both sides by the way.

We need a strong independent movement in this country not some lunatic fringe of the republican far right which seems to be this tea party thing. We also must kick out the lobbyies and all their $$$ thats thrown away at these lawyers/Liars. Sad fact is Democrats and Republicans have failed this nation while selling us out at every chance they get. Its still amazes me we just threw away a Trillion in Iraq and the only WMD's they had were the ones we gave them from decades ago.

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 09:40 AM

yg17

Feb 7, 2010, 09:43 AM

Wow. Can't wait to hear what nonsense her camp will come up with. I know, the little kid wrote her a note on her hand.

She's a huge hypocrite. Apparently, it's OK to use the word retard if you're a Republican like Beck or Limbaugh but not a Democrat like Rahm Emanuel. We won't talk about her dragging her retarded kid around to money raising events. :rolleyes:

And it's also okay for her to call her own son her "retarded baby (http://www.examiner.com/x-19093-Seattle-Special-Needs-Kids-Examiner%7Ey2009m10d28-Sarah-Palin-called-son-Trig-her-retarded-baby)"

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 10:52 AM

Can't wait to hear...

Sidestepping the utterly irrelevant issue you surface and the slur against special needs children you delight in, President Palin (oh wait... not yet) Former Governor Palin appeared on Chris Wallace's Sunday show... very good discussion... love the "once bitten, twice shy deal" she has with the lame-stream liberal media... you go girl!!! Head of the GOP and the Tea Party Movement...

http://fns.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/07/web-exclusive-palins-first-sunday-show/

See Also...

Palin 'Would Be Willing' to Take On Obama in 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/
You Betcha....

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 11:19 AM

Sidestepping the utterly irrelevant issue you surface and the slur against special needs children you delight in, President Palin (oh wait... not yet) Former Governor Palin appeared on Chris Wallace's Sunday show... very good discussion... love the "once bitten, twice shy deal" she has with the lame-stream liberal media... you go girl!!! Head of the GOP and the Tea Party Movement...

http://fns.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/07/web-exclusive-palins-first-sunday-show/

See Also...

Palin 'Would Be Willing' to Take On Obama in 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/
You Betcha....

How it RetardGate not relevant?

yg17

Feb 7, 2010, 11:32 AM

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 11:46 AM

Come on IntheNet, defend your hero. Why is she calling for Ramn Emanual to be fired for using the term '****ing retards' (he was referring to liberals BTW) yet she is OK with Beck and Limbaugh using the terms?

I also noticed she taped her Fox interview. I'd love to see her live.

skunk

Feb 7, 2010, 11:48 AM

Come on IntheNet, defend your hero. Why is she calling for Ramn Emanual to be fired for using the term '****ing retards' (he was referring to liberals BTW) yet she is OK with Beck and Limbaugh using the terms? Rahm Emanuel holds a public office and should bloody well mind his language.

leekohler

Feb 7, 2010, 11:50 AM

Rahm Emanuel holds a public office and should bloody well mind his language.

Yes, but Limbaugh and Beck should too.

dukebound85

Feb 7, 2010, 11:54 AM

The Tea Party of the 18th century was largely an act of political defiance undergone by colonists of a nation distant and unrepresented by the power that ruled them, whereas the 21st century Tea Party consists of a membership who voted for the representatives, policies, and subsequent fiscal ramifications of a political party with whom they now pretend not to be associated..

skunk

Feb 7, 2010, 11:54 AM

Yes, but Limbaugh and Beck should too.Not the same thing.

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 11:56 AM

Rahm Emanuel holds a public office and should bloody well mind his language.

Did Rahm hold a press conference accusing liberals of being retarded? No.

If we continue along your line of thought I imagine everybody who holds public office should resign.

I am really curious what sort of language Palin has used in private meetings. I imagine it can be quite colorful.

This issue should not have even have been a story.

flopticalcube

Feb 7, 2010, 11:57 AM

Not the same thing.
Indeed. Polar opposites even. Beck/Limbaugh use inflammatory language to draw attention to themselves. Its their modus operandi. They represent only themselves and their bank accounts. A public official is a representative of the people and should act accordingly. Too bad so few of them remember that.

Rt&Dzine

Feb 7, 2010, 11:58 AM

Not the same thing.

I have to agree. Limbaugh and Beck are shock jocks, not part of the government.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 12:00 PM

Sidestepping

A tactic you're practicing right now when it comes to dealing my posts.

Palin 'Would Be Willing' to Take On Obama in 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/palin-willing-obama/
You Betcha....

That would guarantee an Obama re-election.

Rahm Emanuel holds a public office and should bloody well mind his language.

He's a flaming you-know-what. A clever one, admittedly, but I certainly don't think much of him. He's a partisan schemer.

skunk

Feb 7, 2010, 12:00 PM

Did Rahm hold a press conference accusing liberals of being retarded? No.

If we continue along your line of thought I imagine everybody who holds public office should resign.

I am really curious what sort of language Palin has used in private meetings. I imagine it can be quite colorful.

This issue should not have even been a story.I did not call for anyone to resign. I said that he should mind his language. He is in a public office, and should be more aware of what he is saying. If Palin, Beck and Limbaugh want to shoot their mouths off, that is up to them, and it is up to their audience to reprimand them.

Rt&Dzine

Feb 7, 2010, 12:06 PM

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 12:07 PM

Not the same thing.

I see it as exactly the same thing. Either she has a problem with the word or she doesn't. Her condemnation of Emanuel was completely political while she ignored Limbaugh's comments.

In a bow to the complete PC idiocy in the US, Emanuel then met with advocates for the mentally handicapped while Rush went on calling it a Retard Summit.

If Palin were so concerned, she would have condemned Limbaugh as well.

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 12:07 PM

I did not call for anyone to resign. I said that he should mind his language. He is in a public office, and should be more aware of what he is saying. If Palin, Beck and Limbaugh want to shoot their mouths off, that is up to them, and it is up to their audience to reprimand them.

Public officials should be responsible for the language they use in public events and the policies that they implement, period. What is or what is not said behind closed doors is not remotely relevant.

skunk

Feb 7, 2010, 12:08 PM

I see it as exactly the same thing. Either she has a problem with the word or she doesn'tI'm not in the slightest bit interested in what she thinks.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 12:26 PM

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in what she thinks.

Well, if she runs for president I suspect most Americans will demonstrate that they share your opinion.

yg17

Feb 7, 2010, 12:30 PM

Rahm said behind closed doors in private, how it even leaked out to the media is beyond me. Beck and Limbaugh are more of a public figure than Rahm is.

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 12:31 PM

I also noticed she taped her Fox interview. I'd love to see her live.

Most of Chris Wallace's interviews are taped so yet again you are disingenuous; nonetheless, her appearance last evening and speech were broadcast live, as was the question & answer period that followed.

A tactic you're practicing right now when it comes to dealing my posts...

I do try to reply if you have a legitimate question...

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 12:39 PM

Most of Chris Wallace's interviews are taped so yet again you are disingenuous; nonetheless, her appearance last evening and speech were broadcast live, as was the question & answer period that followed.

Yes, I saw her reading the notes off of her hand. Wasn't that pathetic? Can you imagine the Commander in Chief of the United States in a meeting with Vladimir Putin checking his/her hand for the answers to questions? I guess we now know why Palin hasn't had a single press conference since she was thrust onto the national stage.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandclose.jpg

Sarah Palin's Tea Party :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/92/242052187_d99104b37e.jpg

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 12:43 PM

Yes, I saw her reading the notes off of her hand.

:rolleyes:

Did she cough too? How about her breathing? That okay or did that likewise upset you? How 'bout her shoes?

Rahm Emanuel holds a public office and should bloody well mind his language.

Indeed. Interesting that Rahm's offense, in closed session, was reported by Democrats. They likewise hate his guts. In any event, SNL had a good take on Rahm's hate...

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/rahm-emanuel/1199682/

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 12:43 PM

I do try to reply if you have a legitimate question...

A legitimate question:

"Would you like to see Palin hold a live, prime time press conference with the major networks, cable outlets, newspapers and international media?"

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 12:44 PM

I do try to reply if you have a legitimate question...

Well, I'm not going to post them again. Go back a page. How can we discuss things if you just pass over them? We'll end up talking at each other rather than to each other. What is the point of that?

dukebound85

Feb 7, 2010, 12:45 PM

Rahm said behind closed doors in private, how it even leaked out to the media is beyond me. Beck and Limbaugh are more of a public figure than Rahm is.

Let's get this straight

Rahm was nominated for office by the POTUS who in turn was elected by the people and hence serves the people

Beck and Limbaugh are media personalities not elected by anyone for any office. The standards that they must adhere to are vastly different than what a member of a public office must adhere to

Of course Rahm should be held to higher standards as he is an official representative of the US government.

Really, this should be obvious and not require pointing out

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 12:47 PM

"Would you like to see Palin hold a live, prime time press conference with the major networks, cable outlets, newspapers and international media?"

Since Obama has not held a "prime time press conference" since July of last year, I think he owes the American public that honor far more than a private citizen....

No Obama Press Conference Since July
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/05/no-obama-press-conference-since-july-brief-encounters-with-wh-beat-reporters-rare-too/

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 12:48 PM

Can you imagine the Commander in Chief of the United States in a meeting with Vladimir Putin checking her hand for the answers to questions?
Can you see Alaska from here?
Georgiar
Nuculear Missiles
USSR
chechnans
signed copy of going rouge?

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 12:49 PM

Let's get this straight

Rahm was nominated for office by the POTUS who in turn was elected by the people and hence serves the people

Beck and Limbaugh are media personalities not elected by anyone for any office. The standards that they must adhere to are vastly different than what a member of a public office must adhere to

Of course Rahm should be held to higher standards as he is an official representative of the US government.

Really, this should be obvious and not require pointing out

Let's get this straight.

The infraction was made in a strategy session last summer - not a public event.

If elected officials, let alone their staff, were forbidden from using profanity or perceived derogatory language at all, we would have no elected officials.

Dont Hurt Me

Feb 7, 2010, 12:49 PM

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 12:50 PM

Since Obama has not held a "prime time press conference" since July of last year, I think he owes the American public that honor far more than a private citizen....

No Obama Press Conference Since July
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/05/no-obama-press-conference-since-july-brief-encounters-with-wh-beat-reporters-rare-too/

This is not about Obama. This is about the fact that Palin ran for Vice President of the United States without holding a press conference.

Let me rephrase:

If Palin runs for President, does she have the right to this country to hold said press conference?

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 12:53 PM

Can you see Alaska from here?
Georgiar
Nuculear Missiles
USSR
chechnans
signed copy of going rouge?

I LOL'd.
The use of Comic Sans was just brilliant.

dukebound85

Feb 7, 2010, 12:55 PM

Palin to address fond Tea Party crowd
By Paul Steinhauser and Pamela Sellers, CNN
February 6, 2010 5:00 p.m. EST
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/06/palin.tea.party/index.html?hpt=C1
"Fremont Brown, a supporter who had "Palin 2012" bumper stickers with him, said Palin is "the right person." "She has fervent heart and she's conservative," added the 59-year-old Brown, who owns a small business in North Carolina. "She was the only one truly qualified with executive experience of the four who ran in 2008. The others were glorified lobbyists."If Palin does make a stab at presidential politics, she'll have a natural following among Tea Party activists, whose grass-roots network is fueled by anger over the growth of the federal government and President Obama's policies.
Who the **** is Fremont Brown and why do I care what his opinion is of Palin?

I like how you bold his thoughts on Palin as if it makes them true

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 12:56 PM

I LOL'd.
The use of Comic Sans was just brilliant.
A fictional Palin quote deserves no less attention to detail :)

rdowns

Feb 7, 2010, 01:02 PM

Who the **** is Fremont Brown

Pretty sure this is him.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 01:11 PM

Pretty sure this is him.

It's quite brave of him to go out still wearing the bandages from his lobotomy.

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 01:18 PM

Sidestepping

I do try to reply if you have a legitimate question...

A legitimate question:

"Would you like to see Palin hold a live, prime time press conference with the major networks, cable outlets, newspapers and international media?"

Since Obama has not held a "prime time press conference" since July of last year, I think he owes the American public that honor far more than a private citizen....
Is this some sort of hypocrisy bingo drinking game :D?

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 01:24 PM

Is this some sort of hypocrisy bingo drinking game :D?

Like I said, we are talking at each other. This has ceased to be a meaningful discussion.

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 01:37 PM

Like I said, we are talking at each other. This has ceased to be a meaningful discussion.
Indeed. As most Palin-inclusive threads go. And to that extent most tea party threads as well. Neither topic is grounds for anything revelatory or any interesting discourse.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 01:45 PM

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 02:09 PM

Like I said, we are talking at each other. This has ceased to be a meaningful discussion.

Take a look at the recent Palin hate threads herein as an educational exercise - almost every one is due to some irrelevant minutia liberals are throwing at her; either they claim she hasn't paid enough tax, she scribbled a note on her hand, she bought books using her PAC monies to reward new donors, etc. Notice a trend?

No hard discussion on Palin's policy stands or political beliefs! Not a single post on Palin's political belief!

Liberals just want to smear Sarah Palin and they'll find anything and use anything to do it... her children are fair game to them. They won't be satisfied until Palin is crucified; that is their aim.

You want "a meaningful discussion" on Palin's policy beliefs, her plans with the Tea Party Convention, or her politics? Let's have at it... but before we do take a look at the threads herein in PRSI and note the venom. Ask yourself why?

xUKHCx

Feb 7, 2010, 02:14 PM

Take a look at the recent Palin hate threads herein as an educational exercise - almost every one is due to some irrelevant minutia liberals are throwing at her; either they claim she hasn't paid enough tax, she scribbled a note on her hand, she bought books using her PAC monies to reward new donors, etc. Notice a trend?

No hard discussion on Palin's policy stands or political beliefs! Not a single post on Palin's political belief!

Liberals just want to smear Sarah Palin and they'll find anything and use anything to do it... her children are fair game to them. They won't be satisfied until Palin is crucified; that is their aim.

You want "a meaningful discussion" on Palin's policy beliefs, her plans with the Tea Party Convention, or her politics? Let's have at it... but before we do take a look at the threads herein in PRSI and note the venom. Ask yourself why?

Yeah that's right "liberals" :rolleyes: I'll just refer you to every single post of mine in this thread to show you that you are wrong.

Please don't paint with a broad brush.

:rolleyes:

Seriously if you want to toss around accusations don't do so when they have already been proven wrong even before you originally posted them.

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 02:16 PM

There's something significant in that - it embodies Palin's approach to politics and that of her adherents. It is very much a line-in-the-sand affair. They don't want dialogue or compromise - they want total political victory, they want to marginalize and ignore their political opponents. So why discuss anything with them?

It's confrontational, myopic, naive, and it isn't going to work.
I see it as exactly the same issue as discussed in the Beck thread. It is the fact that individuals such as Palin (and Beck) can buy into the politics so easily - by rehashing what in essence was written on her hand. The adherents to such ideologies take these people on as patrons (with apparently little critical thought) and as such an extension of their own beliefs. Thus an attack on Palin (irrespective of how valid) is seen as an attack on them personally. The only winner I see from such a position is Palin.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 02:22 PM

No hard discussion on Palin's policy stands or political beliefs! Not a single post on Palin's political belief!

I think there has been discussion of Palin's politics as well. Part of the reason for that is that a large part of Palin's political discussion centers on relatively vague and strident criticism of Obama and his administration. She doesn't talk much about a specific platform of policies.

Conservatives just want to smear Barack Hussein Obama and they'll find anything and use anything to do it...They won't be satisfied until Obama is crucified; that is their aim.

I altered your statement a bit there - and I think the above could be said just as easily. Either way it's poisoning the debate.

You want "a meaningful discussion" on Palin's policy beliefs, her plans with the Tea Party Convention, or her politics? Let's have at it... but before we do take a look at the threads herein in PRSI and note the venom. Ask yourself why?

Because the Tea-Partiers spend most of their time attacking the opposition - they have no interest in what I have to say, because they disagree with me - they don't want to talk, compromise, anything. They want to beat me, silence me and vote my representative out of office. They show no interest in a multiparty, multicultural nation.

leekohler

Feb 7, 2010, 02:50 PM

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 03:05 PM

Because the Tea-Partiers spend most of their time attacking the opposition - they have no interest in what I have to say, because they disagree with me - they don't want to talk, compromise, anything. They want to beat me, silence me and vote my representative out of office. They show no interest in a multiparty, multicultural nation.

This is an unfair assessment; the reason for the Tea Party participant anger is the fact that Obama and his merry band of progressives are drastically changing America to a debtor nation and tremendously increasing the federal presence to a socialist republic and indenturing our youth to permanent government servitude to pay the debt. Of course the main thing you might hear is "attacking the opposition," but you'll also hear reasoned debate among the ranks; reasoned debate of course not covered by the liberal media. So too, all last year Obama's minions criticized and castigated these Town Meetings and Tea Party gatherings as "angry mobs" and ignored citizen anger. Even the gatherings of those citizens unaffiliated with the Tea Party movement were criticized by Democrats as "racists," how are you going to generate compromise from the minority party with the majority party that constantly urinates on the citizenry? And the best example of this: Massachusetts Democrat voters say screw you to the Democrat Party and vote for the young Republican. And the Democrats still won't accept the citizen anger!

skunk

Feb 7, 2010, 03:14 PM

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 03:18 PM

This is an unfair assessment; the reason for the Tea Party participant anger is the fact that Obama and his merry band of progressives are drastically changing America to a debtor nation and tremendously increasing the federal presence to a socialist republic and indenturing our youth to permanent government servitude to pay the debt. Of course the main thing you might hear is "attacking the opposition," but you'll also hear reasoned debate among the ranks; reasoned debate of course not covered by the liberal media. So too, all last year Obama's minions criticized and castigated these Town Meetings and Tea Party gatherings as "angry mobs" and ignored citizen anger. Even the gatherings of those citizens unaffiliated with the Tea Party movement were criticized by Democrats as "racists," how are you going to generate compromise from the minority party with the majority party that constantly urinates on the citizenry? And the best example of this: Massachusetts Democrat voters say screw you to the Democrat Party and vote for the young Republican. And the Democrats still won't accept the citizen anger!

Drastically changing America into a debtor nation?

The United States has been a debtor nation for decades.

The sad truth is that if the Tea Partiers fall in line with Palin's vision of America that was unveiled last night, this does not change at all. If we read between the lines, Palin is for lower taxes, no real cogent plan to deal with entitlements, a commitment to expensive overseas missions, and torture. Basically Bush-Cheney redux.

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 03:19 PM

This kind of ludicrous hyperbole...

No hyperbole skunk... Obama's reckless deficit spending yields an indentured debt of $186,717 per man, woman and child - - or $746,868 per family of 4...

You think we should just sit and the corner and shut up while Obama bankrupts our nation? Is that what you're recommending?

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 03:24 PM

This is an unfair assessment; the reason for the Tea Party participant anger is the fact that Obama and his merry band of progressives are drastically changing America to a debtor nation and tremendously increasing the federal presence to a socialist republic and indenturing our youth to permanent government servitude to pay the debt. Of course the main thing you might hear is "attacking the opposition," but you'll also hear reasoned debate among the ranks. So too, all last year Obama's minions criticized these Town Meetings and Tea Party gatherings as "mobs" and ignored citizen anger. Even the gatherings of those citizens unaffiliated with the Tea Party movement were criticized by Democrats as "racists," how are you going to generate compromise from the minority party with the majority party that urinates on the citizenry?

Just look at the language you're using! It's so loaded it's worthless as a beginning for discussion! You are presenting your conclusions as talking points! Are you willing to debate the assertions about, "[Obama turning the US into a] debtor nation", "socialism", "servitude", "urinat[ing] on the citizenry" etc etc? Or must we accept this inflammatory language as truth before we even start debating anything?

I must admit I have not heard any reasoned debate - only attacks like those mentioned above. That is how you start a fight, not a debate.

Besides, there are JUST as many examples of conservatives making ridiculous, unfounded personal attacks on liberal politicians. Don't you see that it feeds an endless cycle? It's not the fault of just one or the other side. It's a collective failure.

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 03:28 PM

No hyperbole skunk... Obama's reckless deficit spending yields an indentured debt of $186,717 per man, woman and child - - or $746,868 per family of 4...

You think we should just sit and the corner and shut up while Obama bankrupts our nation? Is that what you're recommending?

How is Palin going to bend the curve on government spending?

Is she willing to raise government revenues?

Is she willing to drastically reduce defense spending?

How will she curve healthcare costs? Surely she isn't going to "ration" care. Surely she's not going to get rid of medicare.

How will she handle social security?

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 03:39 PM

I must admit I have not heard any reasoned debate - only attacks like those mentioned above. That is how you start a fight, not a debate...

Have you looked for honest debate? Have you attended a Tea Party rally or meeting in your area to gauge for yourself the aims of the movement or listened to only the castigation of the Tea Parties from the liberal media?

From: http://www.teabagparty.org/

They oppose:

-Forced bailout of mortgages for those who made bad or risky investment choices by those who were more careful.

-Massive federal spending on government social programs that are likely to become entrenched interests.

-Increasing taxes on small businesses and their owners, who are the engine of the economy.

-Massive deficit spending that will take many generations to recover from.

-Ineffective throwing of hundreds of billions at financial institutions with no discernable positive result.

-Reduction of tax breaks for home mortgages and charitable contributions.

-Not allowing details of "spendulous" plans to be seen, read and comprehended prior to a vote.

-Massive "Cap and Tax" on the same kind of air molecules that we breathe out every few seconds.

-Wealth transfer that discourages industry and promotes laziness.

-Lack of concern for the trillions of dollars of personal savings that is being lost in the stock market.

There are numerous Tea Parties across the nation and they welcome Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and all interested. Moreover this is a grassroots movement and the pejoratives hurled at Tea Party supporters are largely undeserved.

colinmack

Feb 7, 2010, 03:46 PM

No hyperbole skunk... Obama's reckless deficit spending yields an indentured debt of $186,717 per man, woman and child - - or $746,868 per family of 4...

You think we should just sit and the corner and shut up while Obama bankrupts our nation? Is that what you're recommending?

I'm not an American, but ummm... wasn't it the previous guy that bankrupted your nation? I'm sure all those 'there can be no doubt' WMDs will eventually show up, but in the meantime the trillions of dollars could probably have helped pay off some of that debt.

...but then again, I'm not an American, so I could just be confused.

dukebound85

Feb 7, 2010, 03:48 PM

IntheNet:

Why don't you answer questions addressed to you?

I am following this thread and you seem to gloss over any and all questions directed to you....

Don't have answers? Is your silence of the answers acceptance of you not having answers? That's what I have to conclude

zap2

Feb 7, 2010, 03:50 PM

Have you looked for honest debate? Have you attended a Tea Party rally or meeting in your area to gauge for yourself the aims of the movement or listened to only the castigation of the Tea Parties from the liberal media?
.

You don't only have to attend a meeting to gauge the aims of the movement. And I think someone who just asked for an honest debate from you has clearly looked for an honest debate before.

The point is, the tea party isn't interested in that. Obama puts out a healthcare bill which will lower the federal deceit, and scream about how evil it is without putting up an alternative. They stand up and say "Obama is a socialist". Those type of thing are't helpful, and they don't allow a meaningful debate.

Also again, this "liberal media" junk you're saying isn't helping your cause.

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 03:50 PM

Have you looked for honest debate? Have you attended a Tea Party rally or meeting in your area to gauge for yourself the aims of the movement or listened to only the castigation of the Tea Parties from the liberal media?

From: http://www.teabagparty.org/

They oppose:

-Forced bailout of mortgages for those who made bad or risky investment choices by those who were more careful.

-Massive federal spending on government social programs that are likely to become entrenched interests.

-Increasing taxes on small businesses and their owners, who are the engine of the economy.

-Massive deficit spending that will take many generations to recover from.

-Ineffective throwing of hundreds of billions at financial institutions with no discernable positive result.

-Reduction of tax breaks for home mortgages and charitable contributions.

-Not allowing details of "spendulous" plans to be seen, read and comprehended prior to a vote.

-Massive "Cap and Tax" on the same kind of air molecules that we breathe out every few seconds.

-Wealth transfer that discourages industry and promotes laziness.

-Lack of concern for the trillions of dollars of personal savings that is being lost in the stock market.

There are numerous Tea Parties across the nation and they welcome Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and all interested. Moreover this is a grassroots movement and the pejoratives hurled at Tea Party supporters are largely undeserved.

So they make no mention of defense spending?

What is the position of the Tea Party members on curving the cost of social programs that are already in place? Do they have the political will to tell seniors that you have to take a cut in your medicare and social security?

What in the world does being opposed to "lack of concern for the trillions of dollars of personal savings that is being lost in the stock market?" mean?

If the Tea Party is against any sort of bail-out for financial institutions or individuals who take risky mortgages, they should feel rather agnostic about the trillions lost in the stock market. After all, it was risk people knowingly took!

This only demonstrates that the Tea Party lacks any sort of intellectual center and is a singular reaction to the current political situation. I see it having no real legs.

They are people who are angry (perhaps rightfully so), with little interest in actually solving the long-term fiscal issues of the country.

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 03:53 PM

Have you looked for honest debate? Have you attended a Tea Party rally or meeting in your area to gauge for yourself the aims of the movement or listened to only the castigation of the Tea Parties from the liberal media?.

The Tea Party advocates I have personally had contact with focused almost exclusively on personal attacks towards Obama. I came across one gentleman talking Tea Party politics who openly described our president using the "n" word. I'll be damned if I'm even going to speak with such scum.

Now, with that being said, I'm sure there are people who would be willing to talk. But I have not met any personally. By chance a Tea Party picketed a government building near where I was staying a few months ago while in the field. They were loud, they were demonstrative and the local news was interviewing them. They repeated pretty much the same inflammatory language you posted except that they only referred to Obama by his full name with emphasis on the middle name. They loudly decried Socialism in Washington but they were unable to point out what specifically was going on that was actually Socialist, and why it was bad. When I asked them what they thought Socialism was they started to become threatening, so I left.

yg17

Feb 7, 2010, 03:56 PM

From: http://www.teabagparty.org/

See? They even call it teabagging. So don't complain the next time a liberal calls them teabaggers.

IntheNet:

Why don't you answer questions addressed to you?

I am following this thread and you seem to gloss over any and all questions directed to you....

Don't have answers? Is your silence of the answers acceptance of you not having answers? That's what I have to conclude
It's his MO. He does it all the time in PRSI. He gets cornered in a debate and when he realizes he can't answer a question, he pretends it's never been asked and then posts a link to some right wing site praising Palin and/or bashing Democrats.

zap2

Feb 7, 2010, 04:03 PM

It's his MO. He does it all the time in PRSI. He gets cornered in a debate and when he realizes he can't answer a question, he pretends it's never been asked and then posts a link to some right wing site praising Palin and/or bashing Democrats.

Agreed...and his links to "support" his ideas are often time opinion pieces....

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 04:04 PM

Just look at the language you're using!

I'll be damned if I'm even going to speak with such scum.

Asked and answered...

II'm sure there are people who would be willing to talk. But I have not met any personally...

I am listening...

You don't only have to attend a meeting to gauge the aims of the movement...

The coverage of the Tea Party movement in the media has been primarily pejorative and hostile; where are you getting your information on these rallies and meetings?

jb1280

Feb 7, 2010, 04:04 PM

Here is a more organized list of questions for the general Tea Party debate.

On the role of government in the financial world.

1. Do banks have the right to issue loans that reasonable people might see as being irresponsible?
2. Do consumers have the right to ask for loans that reasonable people might see as being irresponsible?
3. Do financial institutions have the right to become as large as they want as prescribed by laissez-faire ideology?
4. Do individuals have the right to invest as much and leverage as much as they want in the stock market?

I imagine if the bail-outs served as a catalyst for the Tea Party, they would be more than willing to work with the administration on financial regulatory reform in order to prevent future bailouts.

On government spending.

1. Does the tea party advocate reducing entitlements to those beneath the poverty line, those already on social security, those on medicare, and those who have already bought into the system through paying taxes?
2. Does the tea party advocate any means necessary to curb the cost of healthcare?
3. Does the tea party advocate a foreign policy that drastically reduces the presence of American forces overseas that in turn reduces government expenditure?

I imagine if they were really interested in reducing future costs, they would work with certain groups of liberals to pursue a more modest foreign policy or even, gasp!, on health care reform.

On taxation.

1. Does the tea party ever advocate the raising of taxes to help meet the long-term fiscal obligations of the American government?

Taxes have not gone up during this administration, so as of yet, their worst fears have not been realized.

zap2

Feb 7, 2010, 04:04 PM

I am listening...

You say you are, but your actions make it clear you are not

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 04:08 PM

You say you are, but your actions make it clear you are not

Scroll back through this thread; I am attempting to answer questions and respond to issues; not sure what more you want.

xUKHCx

Feb 7, 2010, 04:08 PM

Asked and answered...

You do realise that the specific sentence you used from Lord Blackadder's post was a direct personal experience with a rascist rather than general terms that you are using in your posts.

Cherry picking a sentance out of a paragraph doesn't support your statement.

Badandy

Feb 7, 2010, 04:09 PM

They are also against competent website design. Add that to the list.

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 04:13 PM

You do realise that the specific sentence you used from Lord Blackadder's post was a direct personal experience with a rascist rather than general terms that you are using in your posts.

Perhaps but Lord Blackadder was the one that specifically condemned the language of the Tea Party participants; i.e., my own words...

Just look at the language you're using!

How can I not respond when he exhibits that which he condemns?

I'll be damned if I'm even going to speak with such scum.

Cherry picking a sentance out of a paragraph doesn't support your statement.

I previously cited the planks of the Tea Party movement as fodder for debate yet my posts are being cherry-picked as well... perhaps if we moved on to those planks as policy discussion we would be all better served. Lord Blackadder seems to want to discuss policy... let's do...

zap2

Feb 7, 2010, 04:21 PM

perhaps if we moved on to those planks as policy discussion we would be all better served.

I think jb1280 post does a great job of that

I think one thing he points out is why the Tea Party isn't looking for common ground for foreign issues...reducing troop levels through the world(think Germany, Japan, Korea) would likely find support on the left as well as the right.

As for issues of healthcare, why didn't the tea party come out in support(in some way) for a bill which would have cut the deficit?

Lastly, if is the Tea Party is largely focused on finical issues, do the majority of the movement not speak out against the racism and lies within the movement? I think if the movement wants to be taken seriously, the first thing for them to do is stop describing Obama as an evil socialist. It suggest they lack an understanding of capitalism(and how its been practiced in the nation) and socialism.

IntheNet

Feb 7, 2010, 04:31 PM

I think jb1280 post does a great job of that

Okay --- agreed...

I think one thing he points out is why the Tea Party isn't looking for common ground for foreign issues...reducing troop levels through the world(think Germany, Japan, Korea) would likely find support on the left as well as the right.

Fair criticism... the Tea Party gatherings I have attended focus primarily on domestic issues - perhaps those in which affect the citizens directly... I have heard some rumblings about Obama starting his own Pakistan war without Congressional oversight...but that's just a word or two in passing. Agreed that Tea Party needs international focus in addition to domestic.

As for issues of healthcare, why didn't the tea party come out in support(in some way) for a bill which would have cut the deficit?

Again... the Tea Party gatherings I have attended surfaced real health care reform ideas - tort reform that would reduce physician lawsuits and promotion of interstate health care plan offerings; ideas that Republicans pushed without Democrat acceptance. Most do not agree the bills as written - in the House and Senate - would cut the deficit.

Lastly, if is the Tea Party is largely focused on finical issues, do the majority of the movement not speak out against the racism and lies within the movement? I think if the movement wants to be taken seriously, the first thing for them to do is stop describing Obama as an evil socialist. It suggest they lack an understanding of capitalism(and how its been practiced in the nation) and socialism.

There are bad apples in every crate. Recall a few years ago the Million Man March on DC? It was heavily covered. All the positive elements of that march were reported yet there were, in fact, bad apples there too... those calling for "Death to Whitey" and other racist exhibits. Not many but just enough to tarnish the movement. Agreed, however, that the Tea Party needs to do a better job addressing the issues. I'll accept that criticism. However, I do think MSNBC focused exclusively on the bad apples at Tea Party rallies and ignored the positive exchange...

Lord Blackadder

Feb 7, 2010, 05:14 PM

How can I not respond when he exhibits that which he condemns?

I was assuming you would agree with me in the case of that individual. The comment was not meant to refer to the Tea Party as a whole, but a person who claimed membership to the party and used incredibly offensive language as part of his discussion of their platform.

You implied that I had no personal contact with Tea Party members or their rallies; I was relating the experiences I have had with them.

We do need to keep the loaded language out of the debate. But the use of overtly racist language has no place in politics. I mentioned the incident in order to point out that at least some members of the Tea Party are extremists, and I can only go on the evidence set before me. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise if that can be done through civil discussion.

.Andy

Feb 7, 2010, 05:16 PM

However, I do think MSNBC focused exclusively on the bad apples at Tea Party rallies and ignored the positive exchange...
Unfortunately the "bad apples" are individuals like Palin who are utilizing the heterogenous and undefinable anger of the teabaggers whipped up by a combination of losing the last election and manipulation by fox news and shouting pundits. They are being played like bagpipes and exploited by the very people who are their self-proclaimed leaders.

The last thing it is is a grass roots movement. Nor is the terrible public image problem of the teabaggers anyone elses fault but their own. When you peddle xenophobia, descend into a crazed cries of birth certificates, socialism, Marxism, Nazism, death panels etc (the list can go on) you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. The tea party has absolutely no platform but anti-Obama. And whilst that might be fun it doesn't have legs. Simply being a contrarian party will win only a very small percentage of supporters.

Eraserhead

Feb 7, 2010, 05:24 PM

Again... the Tea Party gatherings I have attended surfaced real health care reform ideas - tort reform that would reduce physician lawsuits and promotion of interstate health care plan offerings; ideas that Republicans pushed without Democrat acceptance.

Agreed and those are good ideas, but they aren't going to be enough.

StruckANerve

Feb 8, 2010, 03:26 PM

Illegal immigrants can't vote you morons. :rolleyes:

They can here in New Mexico. Voters have no requirement to provide ID.

Eraserhead

Feb 8, 2010, 04:13 PM

They can here in New Mexico. Voters have no requirement to provide ID.

Don't they have to say who they are in some way? Even if by pointing themselves out on a list.

NT1440

Feb 8, 2010, 04:19 PM

Agreed and those are good ideas, but they aren't going to be enough.

yet they seem to think it will be for some reason....

hulugu

Feb 8, 2010, 08:32 PM

They can here in New Mexico. Voters have no requirement to provide ID.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that migrants have voted in elections in New Mexico?

Macky-Mac

Feb 8, 2010, 09:01 PM

Don't they have to say who they are in some way? Even if by pointing themselves out on a list.

yes, you have to be registered to vote. Every state has it's own rules about when you have to register and what identification you're required to show in order to register. Typically, you have to sign something swearing you're legally eligible to vote.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 8, 2010, 11:16 PM

Do you have any evidence to suggest that migrants have voted in elections in New Mexico?

How is evidence going to be obtained if they can't lawfully check IDs at the voting booths? Thats like outlawing DUI charges and then assuming that no one drives drunk.

hulugu

Feb 8, 2010, 11:59 PM

How is evidence going to be obtained if they can't lawfully check IDs at the voting booths? Thats like outlawing DUI charges and then assuming that no one drives drunk.

So, the short answer is no?

An audit of voting roles would allow someone to see if there were voters who either voted twice, voted in two districts on the same day, or were otherwise incapacitated as eligible voters: prison, foreign address, dead, etc.
But, rather than do this, we're going to check IDs even though our nefarious migrant can get a fake passport or other document, to solve the problem with migrant voting while there's no evidence to support that they do.
Additionally, are there any interviews, documents, or some support that migrants have attempted to vote at all?

I've never found anything to suggest that this was anyone more than the nascent worry of a particular number of Americans. The migrants, however, tell me that there's no way they'd bother. It's another way to get into trouble, it's another brush with authority, and it doesn't really matter to them.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 9, 2010, 12:13 AM

So, the short answer is no?

An audit of voting roles would allow someone to see if there were voters who either voted twice, voted in two districts on the same day, or were otherwise incapacitated as eligible voters: prison, foreign address, dead, etc.
But, rather than do this, we're going to check IDs even though our nefarious migrant can get a fake passport or other document, to solve the problem with migrant voting while there's no evidence to support that they do.
Additionally, are there any interviews, documents, or some support that migrants have attempted to vote at all?

I've never found anything to suggest that this was anyone more than the nascent worry of a particular number of Americans. The migrants, however, tell me that there's no way they'd bother. It's another way to get into trouble, it's another brush with authority, and it doesn't really matter to them.

Our government is the same one who sends out stimulus checks to prisoners, continues to send SS checks to the deceased, and a whole assortment of other issues. What exactly are they going to check against? Because its fairly obvious that their record keeping abilities are flawed.

I have no doubt that these illegal voters don't amount to many votes at all, but at the same time to say that it doesn't matter to them is false, if they can vote for a candidate that would grant them amnesty I am sure they would try their hardest.

leekohler

Feb 9, 2010, 12:45 AM

Our government is the same one who sends out stimulus checks to prisoners, continues to send SS checks to the deceased, and a whole assortment of other issues. What exactly are they going to check against? Because its fairly obvious that their record keeping abilities are flawed.

I have no doubt that these illegal voters don't amount to many votes at all, but at the same time to say that it doesn't matter to them is false, if they can vote for a candidate that would grant them amnesty I am sure they would try their hardest.

And you have a flawless system that tells you when people die? Please, tell me about it.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 9, 2010, 01:00 AM

And you have a flawless system that tells you when people die? Please, tell me about it.

Most states require a death certificate to my knowledge. We live in the digital age now, there is no excuse for our antiquated techniques.

leekohler

Feb 9, 2010, 01:09 AM

Most states require a death certificate to my knowledge. We live in the digital age now, there is no excuse for our antiquated techniques.

Well. Dead is better than alive anyway, right? It's so much more profitable. I mean really, keeping people alive is silly when it comes to making cash.It's so much easier when they're dead. Or do I have that wrong? Is it really more profitable to keep people alive?

leekohler

Feb 9, 2010, 01:18 AM

Funny how they run away when faced with the truth.

yamabushi

Feb 9, 2010, 02:07 AM

I highly recommend watching the Frontline episodes dealing with the financial crisis as it gives some insight into the decisions making process. I suggest watching them in this order:

Frontline: The Warning (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/)

Frontline: Inside the Meltdown (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/)

Frontline: Breaking the Bank (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/breakingthebank/)

Frontline: Ten Trillion and Counting (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/)

Be very wary of anything you hear from some pundits in the media as they often don't know what they are talking about and more typically are politically motivated. The politics of the fiscal debate has completely clouded the issues and spread misinformation. Our economic and fiscal problems are basically the fault of all of the presidential administrations and congresses for the last 35 years or so - Democrat and Republican. We had the opportunity to prevent many of the problems but ideology got in the way of common sense.

Keep in mind that the current recession is related to only a very small part of the national debt. A significant piece of the national debt was created because of financing (and winning) the cold war. Now we have so much compounding interest on the debt that it is very difficult to get it under control even if we were to operate with a balanced budget in the future.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 9, 2010, 10:50 AM

Well. Dead is better than alive anyway, right? It's so much more profitable. I mean really, keeping people alive is silly when it comes to making cash.It's so much easier when they're dead. Or do I have that wrong? Is it really more profitable to keep people alive?

Are we still talking about illegals voting with stolen information or not?

Funny how they run away when faced with the truth.

Funny how you wait for a wholesome 9 minutes for a reply.

mcrain

Feb 10, 2010, 04:18 PM

Keep in mind that the current recession is related to only a very small part of the national debt. A significant piece of the national debt was created because of financing (and winning) the cold war.

Ok, I'm sure this is way off topic, but winning the cold war? The U.S.S.R. succumbed to internal pressures due to overspending and due to its own populous seeking change (because of the hardships from overspending).

In hindsight, from a larger historical perspective, Russia is still there, they still have their military, they are spending on their military, they are influencing other countries, and they are recovering from their overspending. The U.S. is standing on the same brink that the U.S.S.R. was at the end of the "cold-war."

In 5 years if we don't fix our problems, don't you think the Russians may have the ability to say that their stepping back from a cold-war mentality and focusing instead on fixing their internal problems caused them to actually win the cold-war?

Eraserhead

Feb 10, 2010, 04:37 PM

In 5 years if we don't fix our problems, don't you think the Russians may have the ability to say that their stepping back from a cold-war mentality and focusing instead on fixing their internal problems caused them to actually win the cold-war?

Given how far ahead the US was from Russia 10 years ago. That you're even saying that is damn scary.

Zombie Acorn

Feb 10, 2010, 04:42 PM

In 5 years if we don't fix our problems, don't you think the Russians may have the ability to say that their stepping back from a cold-war mentality and focusing instead on fixing their internal problems caused them to actually win the cold-war?

From the people I speak to from Russia on a daily basis (language exchange) they have a lot longer than 5 years to say anything about fixing their internal problems and winning anything.

Eraserhead

Feb 10, 2010, 04:46 PM

mcrain

Feb 10, 2010, 04:48 PM

From the people I speak to from Russia on a daily basis (language exchange) they have a lot longer than 5 years to say anything about fixing their internal problems and winning anything.

Ok, 10 years, 15, say 20. Same point. If we self-destruct because of our overspending on military, did we really win? If we don't stop bickering and start working together to actually fix our problems, are we going to be the next Rome? British empire? French empire?

mcrain

Feb 10, 2010, 04:48 PM

What about if we look at China instead of Russia?

It's not good to talk negatively about the people that own your *ss.

skunk

Feb 10, 2010, 04:51 PM

What about if we look at China instead of Russia?Despite the seemingly rapid rise of China, they started from an incredibly low base.

Eraserhead

Feb 10, 2010, 04:53 PM

It's not good to talk negatively about the people that own your *ss.

:confused:

What I was essentially saying was this:

In 5 years if we don't fix our problems, don't you think the Russians Chinese may have the ability to say that their stepping back from a cold-war mentality and focusing instead on fixing their internal problems caused them to actually win the cold-war?

Saying how they changed after they started their market reforms in the late 1970's ;).

skunk

Feb 10, 2010, 04:53 PM

Zombie Acorn

Feb 10, 2010, 05:06 PM

Ok, 10 years, 15, say 20. Same point. If we self-destruct because of our overspending on military, did we really win? If we don't stop bickering and start working together to actually fix our problems, are we going to be the next Rome? British empire? French empire?

The US's power will slowly diminish as more countries enter stable and good economic conditions, I don't see this as a bad thing, we have been pulling more than our weight (and screwing up many times in the process) trying to police the world. Time to bring the troops back home.

I don't know if its just that I grew up after the cold war or what, but I don't have any ill will towards Russia/China or communism (former) in general