Nonviolent opinions about psychology, religion, and budget cuts are not extreme positions. You cannot will them to be. As for your Texas comment, I can't believe I didn't see your side of the argument before, but by pointing out that I am from Texas you have made an excellent case and proved that you are capable of intellectual thought on a higher level than my own. Your intellect is suffocating me.

Your ability to quickly summarize your argument as a hasty generalization does nothing to present the appearance of an intellectual discussion. You think you're the first one to discover that politicians have opinions and make statements? That's adorable. They can't actually be put together to make such a generalization of the tea party movement though.

If you're still convinced that it is sufficient argument, allow me to utilize your logic to prove to you that the Democrat party is racist.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton

Senator Reid referred to Obama as a light-skinned African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Senator Robert Byrd (no quotes needed

See? I just proved that Democrats are racist.

 

I'm asking you a very serious question here. Do you support the positions taken by the candidates I listed or not? How can you separate the candidate from their beliefs? And doesn't in matter? If the likes of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell get elected one of the items on their agenda is to outlaw porn sites just like this one.

And an intellectual can tell the difference between generalizations and specific examples which you just failed to note. I paraphrased Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell's own words. And you want to support that and pretend you're some kind of intellectual? Epic fail.

And all this is so unintellectual the only words for it is fucking brainwashed stupid assed fucking parroted snippets. Non-fuck you, you dumb non-fucker.

I ask you specific questions on specific stances on the part of your beloved Tea Party Candidates and you roll out with this dumb assed fucking dodge and have the gall to use the word intellectual let alone intelligence?

You're not even worth wasting my time on with such a fucking obvious dodge and dive to some prepared brainwashed snippets you can parrot.

All this proves is what was obvious from the beginning. You spend a lot of time talking about shit you don't even fucking know.

 

You're talking to somebody who thinks that the only extreme positions are violent ones. Don't waste your time. He's a product of the Texas school system, one of the worst in the nation. Anything you claim he's going to ignore, and continue to claim completely nonesense things like the first sentence in this paragraph.

 

Your questions were irrelevant and nothing more than an attempt to frame a hasty generalization as a question. Here you go.

I do not know how old the earth is. An educated guess is still just a guess.

I do not believe that pornography and masturbation are the most serious problems in our nation, but I would absolutely allow someone else that opinion and listen intently to their argument.

Ending social security and medicare is a great discussion, but it's not a short one. They aren't working. You can blame whoever you like for why they're not working, but the fact remains that they are both unsustainable on the path they've been taking for quite some time. I can't just come out and say that I want to get rid of them, but am I up for discussing how the market can be altered in order to reduce dependency on them or even to render them unnecessary? Absolutely.

Should we do away with public education? Again, that's too large of an issue to simply say "yes" or "no." I would, of course, be open to hearing any suggestions that would either address its shortcomings or a better solution to take its place.

"Should we encourage total war in the Middle East to hasten the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ?" ...name the tea party candidate who said this and I'll show you an out of context quote.

There is nothing extreme about ideas to stop us from heading toward another economic collapse.

No shit!? I was utilizing you're logic, if you could read you would have read when I clearly told you what I was doing.

Typical of the outspoken opponents of the tea party these days. All insults, all anger, no facts or reasonable logic. If you say "fuck you" a bunch of times your fallacies of logic begin to iron themselves out, true story.

Yes, I do. Oppressive or violent positions are extreme. What do you want to call Hitler? Super extreme? Should we make up a new word to replace extreme so that you can use the strongest word you know right now to describe people who simply believe in fiscal responsibility? I realize that it may make you feel like your life has meaning to be "fighting extremists" but the rest of us who actually like to talk like adults aren't going to redefine the English language to make you feel more useful. Honestly I don't know why I'm even addressing you. Once again, typical of the tea party opponents, you're only capable of hurling insults and trying to stereotype people as a defense mechanism used to replace the logic and reason that you do not possess. You have no idea where I grew up or what my life story is, but if I have to tear down your stereotype of me before you'll actually type one word that expresses truly logical thought, you're not capable of handling an intellectual discussion with me (take it as an insult if you want, but you're the one who chose to stereotype rather than debate). If intelligence is determined by state, Maryland must be an intellectual ghost town. I thought you would appreciate it if I mirrored your logic for a moment.

 

The U.S. economy is quite a bit more productive than a generation ago. Unfortunately, most of the growth has gone to the richest 5%. All we need to do is tax those people heavily, and there will be plenty of money for Social Security, Medicare, and a single payer health system. It would also help if we would end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and slash the defense budget.

Meanwhile, go ahead and try to phase out Social Security and Medicare. They are called "the third rail" for a reason. Whenever a Republican politician touches them, he or she gets a terrible shock.

 

I am not sure about the percentage of people getting welfare benefits. The percentage of the federal budget going for AFDC and food stamps is 2%.

The answer to your second question is yes, that is what CFH420 wants.

 

Did you feel that way when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were president? Why are deficits only a problem when a Democrat is in the White House?

 

I disagree with the theory that all of this money is going to the wealthy where it sits in a bunker and never sees the light of day again. I know these talking points are typical, but good arguments are good arguments. These wealthy people are employers, both directly and indirectly. Whether it be by starting a business and hiring others to do work within that business, or the fancy car they bought (factory workers have families too), the investments that they make, or even the people they hire to do their dirty work like clean the pool and trim the lawn. Hell, even their property taxes.

I don't think that wealthy people want all this money just to have all this money. If that was the case, I don't see why they wouldn't buy small houses, inexpensive but reliable cars, and plain clothes. The more extravagant their lifestyle, the more clear indication that the money they make is being redistributed through the economy. Some of the people in the highest brackets don't even keep that much money in the bank. Some of them are reinvesting into their work in hopes of seeing a desired profit margin in which they can make a personal profit and their company can sustain itself with a little extra.

I do, however, think that too much money is leaving the hands of the wealthy and damaging our economy as it does so. This is my opinion, and I'd love to study it more to see if my opinion has much truth to it. I think that huge chunks of our economy are disappearing every year due to outsourcing. I think we have a real problem on our hands that we can outsource to other countries and get the same quality work for a fraction of the cost. I mean, do you realize how difficult it is to buy an American made car in America right now? The U.S. auto industry is fading into nothing, and I'd be foolish not to think that very situation and any other similar markets are not largely responsible for our high unemployment. My opinion is that this may be the largest threat to our economy, and it's a theory I'm working on from observation entirely at this point. I know that labor is cheaper elsewhere, I know that our unions are largely responsible for this and have gotten a bit out of control, but what I don't know for fact is that it is as big of a problem as I perceive it to be. I also don't have a complete opinion on a solution to the problem beyond lowering minimum wage to pathetic levels and allowing child labor, which obviously aren't wonderful ideas.

As for the wars, you know as well as I do that it's a bit more complicated than that. I'm sorry that "they're defending our freedom" has become such a frequently used statement that many people are able to overlook it with no emotion, but that doesn't make it any less true. It doesn't matter what we did in the past that got us here, the fact is that on 9/11 an enemy attacked us on our soil. That isn't a discussion point, it's a historical fact that you and I both witnessed. Now, we can both have opinions about how to deal with the threat. The fact remains that it must be dealt with. I want this to be over just as much as anyone else. I want it wrapped up and slapped into the history books. What I don't have is a better idea to deal with the problem because it's pretty spread out and we're fighting an enemy with no real leader or base.

Be careful not to make assumptions. I'm afraid I can't speak of the Reagan presidency from memory. All I will say about Reagan is that he did great things and he made what probably amounts to an equal number of mistakes.

I'm going to be straight with you about Bush. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I didn't like the guy as some cheap attempt to get a pat on the back from his many haters. I realize that people write you off the second you say you liked President Bush, but I don't desire the social acceptance of someone unable to look past my "thumbs up or thumbs down" review. Bush failed to push hard against the housing crisis. He supported the Patriot Act, and that's pretty damn hard to forgive. I'm equally angry at every Republican and Democrat who supported it. He drove up quite a bill, and I won't completely defend that.

What I will say is that 9/11 was an unbelievable tragedy. Hindsight is always 20/20, we can all say we would have made different decisions than he made after that day now that we look back on it. The fact is we weren't the ones in that office, and I believe that he tried with everything he had to do what was right in response to it. A lot of the military spending was necessary. I think that Iraq could have waited, but the recent military documents leaked by Wikileaks actually do finally paint us a picture that tells us we actually had a reasonable suspicion that they possessed WMDs. Good old liberal Nancy Pelosi answered without pause that she believed Iraq had WMDs. We were wrong. We can't undo that.

What I liked about Bush is that he was direct. He said what was on his mind. It wasn't filtered for marketing purposes. He didn't spend all his time golfing or campaigning. At his ranch in Texas it was business as usual, he did his job there just like he would have in Washington. I never felt like Bush was trying to sell me a product. He listened, he responded. He didn't always agree, but I never once recall him belittling those who disagreed with him. To me, Bush had the attitude that I expect of a president.

Why I hold the current administration to a different standard on deficit spending is a question I can absolutely answer. During the Bush administration there were light attempts to check into Fannie & Freddie, and there were clear warning signs. What no one expected was just how quickly the shit would hit the fan. It hit the fan while Bush was in office, but it really trickled down through every aspect of our economy as he was wrapping up his term, and during Obama's first months. Bush spent money on military as a reaction to 9/11. I like to think he didn't see just how quickly this recession was coming or how severe it would be. The current administration not only saw it, but they "inherited" it as they like to say. Look, you can claim you overspent because you didn't realize the severity of the financial emergency coming up. I'll shake my head and say "should have been more careful" but I'll understand. What I can't and won't overlook is that you just got hit with an unbelievable electric bill that you can't afford to pay, and your response is to take all your friends out to an expensive dinner on you. You don't get to complain about your financial situation then. It's on you. The current administration has been more concerned with passing expensive legislation designed to make themselves popular with voters than they have been about balancing the budget. They saw a problem, blew it out of proportion, and declared that they were morally responsible to fix it now at all costs. I disagree. I think you're morally responsible to find the money first. So, to me, the Bush administration's deficit spending was irresponsible, but very different from the current administration's. What we'll both do good to remember though is that when it boils down to it, it's the same people doing it now as it was doing it during Bush's second term. Republicans didn't complain, but Democrats were equally responsible for signing the checks.

 

This is how well your theory works:

 

Whatever happened to just kicking the asses of those that need it? I think we can lay all the politics and bullshit aside to deal with people that need to be dealt with.
A little fucking tea party cannot and will not slow down America.

 

I don't accept comic strips as valid arguments. I'm not going to argue every aspect of trickle down economics, but if your response is to tell me that rich people making purchases, starting businesses, or making investments doesn't "trickle down" money to the middle and lower class, I'd be unbelievably interested in hearing how you arrived at such a conclusion.

If I'm rich and you're poor and I pay you to mow my lawn, guess what...money just trickled down. Now you're going to go buy food, and guess what? You just paid the store and its employees. Guess who that also pays? The farmer who grew the food. Those are facts I don't need citations for.

 

I remember being told, "The brave American boys in Vietnam are defending our freedom." However, after they lost my freedom did not get any less. The idea that American soldiers who are killing people in the third world are defending my freedom is a stupid cliche that turns my stomach. I do not see how my freedom would be any less than in a country with a much lower military budget.

The U.S. military does not defend my freedom. It projects American power where it is not wanted and does not belong.

 

The information overload generation. We're all hyped up because for once in our lives we have access to information beyond the local news and the local library. It's caused quite an interesting political climate.

 

Since the administration of Lyndon Johnson there has always been more job creation under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. This is what Republicans think a good economy looks like:

"Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634

Right now corporations have plenty of money, but they are not hiring because people are not buying. People are not buying because they are unemployed, or they are afraid of losing their jobs. I want the government to take that money and hire people directly.

 

Put it this way. If someone wants to kill you, and has made it clear that they're going to do it, you can either let it happen or defend yourself. If pure defense causes loss of innocent lives in your neighborhood because those people just won't leave you alone, some would call it noble to go seek them out and put an end to it, for the lives of your neighbors. They attacked us on 9/11, and they made it clear that they weren't done. They were using their safe zones as bases and seeking to come after our citizens, our families, with chemical warfare. If you don't think that's a noble reason to go stop them, I'd say you're no better than them because you'd simply prefer that we die instead of them. When people like that make a choice, someone is going to die. Personally, I'd rather it be them.

We can debate your other theories of military use another day. There is no debate that stopping those who want to kill our families is a fight for our freedom. I'm speaking, of course, about freedom in life. If it's freedom in death you want, we share different goals.

 

Democrat vs Republican job statistics are irrelevant. I look at the people, not their party.

I offer an alternative theory about why companies aren't expanding right now. As you know, we passed a health insurance bill filled with so much vague language and loopholes that no one can accurately say exactly what will happen between now and 2014. There's a lot of empty propaganda on both sides of the debate over it. It's all about how the government that enforces it chooses to interpret it or chooses to alter it between now and then. In short, it's effect is uncertain. It's cost to employers is still not set in stone, and we're all waiting to see exactly how it's going to play out. Now you tell me how willing you are to take risks and/or expand your business when you can't say with accuracy how much each employee is going to cost you in 2014? A smart person in business would hold onto extra cash and wait this one out. Bottom line, this bill should have been brought up after we pulled the economy back up to a level where people were confident that our economy was stable.

 

A single informer could have prevented 9/11. It was a problem for law enforcement, not the military. Saddam had nothing to do with it, and he had no weapons of mass destruction. We never caught Osama bin Laden. We invaded two countries and got nothing in return.

After 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, "We did not attack the United States because the United States was weak. If we wanted to attack a weak country we would have attacked Iceland." He also said that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and lead to the fall of the Soviet Union, and that the American occupations of Aftghanistan and Iraq would have the same effect on the United States. So far it seems to be happening. If you think the Republican party will fix the economy after the next election, you are delusional.

Also, it was grotesquely irresponsible for Bush to start two expensive wars while cutting taxes. Any argument for more military spending is an argument for higher taxes to pay for it.

 

I agree that President Obama should have reduced the unemployment rate before addressing health care. He should have raised the top tax rate like Clinton did, and hired people directly at government expense like Roosevelt did.

 

Preventing 9/11 is off the table, we're beyond that. I've already written my thoughts on the Iraq war. I do not accept Osama as a credible economist. If you think the Democrat party led by a president who's more concerned with self image than practically anything else and believes that the only way out of a recession is to rack up more debt to foreign countries, you're equally as delusional. You can make assumptions about a Republican majority in 2012, but they're just opinions. I don't need opinions to see what the people in power right now are doing this very moment. They're careless and more concerned with marketing. We'll see what happens in 2012.

I never said anything about the Bush tax cuts. I'm starting to get the impression that you're just projecting all of your preconceived ideas and complaints about a "conservative" onto me regardless of their actual merit in any discussion about the tea party.

Anyway, thanks for intelligent discussion. Better get a little rest in!

 

So the Tea Partiers are dangerous to America?, that's actually hilarious.
These people want nothing more than smaller Govt. and an end to spending money we don't have as their main core beliefs.
And their grand childrens childrens money especially being spent now. Yeah already spending two generations worth of taxes that aren't even born yet, hows that for the ultimate in selfishness?

Stop buying into all the false attacks on them, its called the Saul Alinsky strategy and seems to be working on many, and the democratic party are masters of using it.

Who created this housing financial mess?
Well lets start with DEMOCRAT Jimmy Carters CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) in the 1970's that FORCED banks to give bad loans to people for housing that they couldn't afford. And now the banks are the only ones to blame because they found a way to capitalize on that rather than lose money because of that dimwit, please!!!!.

Blame the capitalists!!!!!, sorry, it was a forced SOCIALIST policy that caused this, not capitalism as your being falsely fed to believe, do your own DD and find out the truth.
Put the blame where it started, a democratic president. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, both dems, both all for it and saying there was no problem when repubs saw this as bad dealings and bad for us down the road. Dems stood in the way of stopping this earlier on, so they get 95% of the blame. And you want more of that? Hey if so I've got some land to sell ya, has gold on it even

Can't find a job?, how about blameing Bill Clinton for nationalizing trade w/ China making it almost imposible now to compete here globally. That's why these jobs aren't comming back, but blame Bush if that makes you feel better. Alittle few facts about the dems and repubs:

Who freed the slaves here in the USA, a Republican.
Who started the KKK, democrats.
Who was mainly behind the civil rights act in the 1960's, Republicans.
Who created the welfare "entitlement" programs that made many just resign their working talents and make that free check their way of life, democrats.

Democrats have been the worst thing that ever could have happened to the black race as a whole, they killed their incentives w/ "entitlements" to work and succeed by way of free and easy money, so why strive and work hard? If someone winds up on welfare after losing a job fine, but having 6 children while on it is clearly abusing the system. And their the victims?, I'd call the taxpayer the victim.

If democrats are so truly concerned for the poor, why is it conservatives are known to be the most generous in charities?. Where's all that democratic love for these poor when it comes time to put THEIR MONEY where their mouth is? I call it hypocrisy.

Like Margarette Thatcher once said "The only problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money". Anyone care to point out just one socialist society that have thrived and succeeded like the capitalist USA has? They all fail, its common mathematics we learned in grade school that shows us it doesn't, and can't work. And if you had any idea what the rich actually DO PAY you'd shit your pants and never talk about how bad they are again that's a fact. If YOU had to pay what they do you'd pack up and leave ASAP, their overtaxed if anything.
They make a great scapegoat though for dems w/ a secret agenda.

8/28, Glenn Beck Rally with alot of Tea Partiers present along with just many plain old concerned Ameicans, not one piece of trash left behind after they all left.

10/2/10 Rally, the socialists, unions, communists, ENVIRONMENTALISTS etc... have a rally at the same spot, afterwards the place was trashed with litter everywhere including the war memorials, the reflecting pool etc... This was such a show of disrespect for that area, and some of you are proud to be associated with some of those participants that hosted, no thanks on this end.
I saw those ENVIRONMENTALISTS sure do care alot about the earth with all that trash and the water bottles strewn all over everywhere, another great exapmle of the word hypocrisy.

If the Tea Party is dangerous, the socialist progressive dems/ liberals are a nuclear bomb to the USA.

Could someone please explain at least this, how do you pay off and make good on 70 trillion in debt and promises? (this is using the low figure from 160 trillion being the high end) Explain please, then you can tell me again how the Tea Party is so dangerous to the USA.

I'm a Conservative Independant BTW, so bashing me as a repub will be wasting your time. Just use your common sense for once and a calculator.