sorry about that - guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt by sifting through the following with more care . . . heeeeeeeere we go:

This sentence is a little difficult to navigate, but I'll assume you mean that there is some kind of un-named "extremist agenda" group and a seperate group called the "Tea Party" - which allows two clearly distinctive groups and keeps the TP clean as a whistle. It isn't that way. I believe mostly because this so-called "Party" has no clear leadership, no clear platform, no clear agenda of any sort. In a vacuum all sorts of nuts pop up and stick around. The Tea Party clearly has racist, extremist members and wanna-be leaders amongst them - and have done very, very little to weed them out.

Couldn't figure out what you're trying to say here, sorry.

When the NAACP doesn't censure the bigots and fuckwits in their midst I deride them just as plainly.

This is the deeeeeeep part I was referring to - lines like this get you laid (if she, or he, is drunk enough). Maybe I'm envious - I could never type that with a straight face.

 

Hey man all I'm saying is your labelling the entire Tea Party as rascists... thats unfair... It doesn't deserve more discussion than that... I know in my chapter there is a few of those who take it to extreme measures but it doesn't represent us as a whole....

The Tea Party is just a bunch of pissed of americans who want to stop the immense spending and increasing size of the government... And look at me I am a Tea Party member and im not rascist... maybe not everything needs a leader.... consider that!

 

:lol: reading comprehension a problem for you usually? Please go back to any post of mine where any reasonable person could construe my point as "labelling the entire Tea Party as rascists". I would loooooooove to see how you managed to interpret that conclusion from my words.

On the other hand, I still haven't seen you lecture ace's-n-8's on the idea that there are indeed some extremists and racists within the Tea Partiers :-| Why is that?

 

Oh I see, what should they do to weed these people out? Shoot them? Lock them up? Handcuff them to a bed so they can't show up at the rally? You're arguing on such a slant I can almost hear you slipping.

You admit every group has idiots, every group has idiots because it is incredibly hard to simply "weed out" an idiot--legally. So admit it and move on. But you can't do that, can you? He speaketh with a forked tongue doth he? You say you recognize this fact, but then you keep speaking of "racism" in the tea party as if there is something new and extraordinary to talk about. Is there? Is the tea party racist? Or do you acknowledge that many cannot be responsible for the few? Make up your mind.

As for the party itself? I would say it is very clearly the least offensive picketing we have ever seen. And they should be praised for that, not attacked for a few signs. In other rallies there is always damage, the summit rallies for example, and in the Bush years people didn't just hold up a few dumb signs, they threw rocks and burned his likeness in effigy. I mean, while I can't support the movement because I don't really know what they stand for (they need to figure that out) I can give nothing but support to their rallies. To have that many people in one place chanting and yet remaining entirely peaceful? Again, you laud such action, you don't cherry pick a sign to try and tear it all down. Yet people are so worked up about a large movement that has managed the miracle of staying peaceful? You want me to believe you aren't bias and you aren't damning a certain movement for a problem which exists in every movement? To quote an Old Tool. Give me a break.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Punk.

 

Bawleris that you?

 

Where was the Tea Party when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush increased the size of government by borrowing money to spend on the military?

After the reckless economic policies of Reagan and Bush the GOP had no credibility on spending and the national debt.

 

That is very impressive logic on your part Lover. I can imagine my city being attacked and calling people to arms but they bury their heads in the sand. Finally though, just as we're being overrun they wake up to the problem and say they want to help, at which point I employ your logic and say, "No, we don't want your help. Where were you last week?"

I don't care how long it took these people to see the problem or even what made them see the problem, the fact is that our government is spending too much and no one can deny that it is destructive. So you want to complain about where they were two years ago or you just want to be thankful that people are finally getting the picture? Don't answer that, I know you'd rather brood about Ronald Reagan.

Let something go at some point and you might actually be able to live in the present, judging from all your posts you live anywhere from 1834-2008.

 

I like to expose the hypocrisy of the teabaggers. They only care about deficits they can blame on the Democrats. They only care about government spending that is designed to improve lives. They like government spending that is designed to destroy life.

When Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," he expressed the true Republcian attitude about deficit spending.

 

So you'd prefer to have the deficit go up and no one complain, rather than have people you don't like complain about it going up? Ok, well...that's enlightening. This is what bitter partisanship does to people, if only the children could be warned!

 

Rather than raise the deficit, I would like to raise taxes on the rich.

 

Rather than act shocked, I'll pretend to be surprised. But the way our government is going right now, more taxes on the rich would simply mean more money for them to waste and none of it would go towards deficit reduction. They should probably prove they can be responsible with our money before we give them more of it...you know. I've got more crazy ideas like that, so don't worry.

 

When Nancy Pelosi said, "I don't really understand whats in the Healthcare Bill, We will just have to pass it to find out won't we?"

She expressed the true nonchalantness of her entire administration and house dems in general about how they care about the treatment of the American people....

 

The terrorists win when you complain!!!!

 

Oh, you mean like the way Sarah Palin and others spread the lie that the bill included "death panels"?

 

Don't hold your breath, they are probably coming to your neighborhood soon.

 

You changed the subject. I was exposing how hypocritical the new found concern for budget deficits is on the right.

However, since you did change the subject, "At a recent meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Republican presidential candidate John McCain admitted he 'doesn't really understand economics'."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html

 

Wow what a revelation, a Presidential candidate (who lost by the way) admits that he does understand economics.
Can you name one who did? That is the guy I would be most afraid of.
They all need to surround themselves with guru's who do understand economics, national security, education, health care, etc. etc., they are called Secretaries and advisers. They call it the administrative branch and that is what a good President does, he is an executive.

 

Down with Obama's government..McCain!!!

 

Hoover learned.