Foes of Tea Party movement to plan to infiltrate them

[1bad65]

"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, ****phobic and moronic.

Jason Levin, creator of http://www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15—tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.

"They can't actually debate our message and that's their problem," said Bob MacGuffie, a Connecticut organizer for Right Principles, a tea party group that also has members in New York and New Jersey.

The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.

"Do I think every member of the tea party is a ****phobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are ****phobes, racists or morons? Absolutely.""

Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F1PU2O0&show_article=1

Gee, looks like I was right. And my posts were made days BEFORE this article came out. ;)

[Reality_Check]

So I guess Carl Paladino is just a plant, huh?

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1635208/WNED-AM.970.NEWS/Tea.Party.Express.Rolls.into.Buffalo

"Among the speakers will be Buffalo developer Carl Paladino, who just announced he's running for governor."

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/12/1016974/paladino-accused-of-sending-racist.html

"Buffalo's Carl P. Paladino was scrambling to save his Republican candidacy for governor Monday after a local Web site released a string of pornographic and racially degrading e-mails that he acknowledged forwarding to a large group of friends."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002299-503544.html

"A Tea Party darling, Paladino reportedly sent an e-mail depicting a horse having sex with a woman and another that included a pornographic video and the headline 'Miss France 2008 F[***]ing.' He also reportedly sent out an e-mail depicting President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as a pimp and prostitute and one showing an airplane landing near black men with the caption 'Holy Sh*t. run ni**ers, run!'


After one respondent complained that the 'Obama Inauguration Rehearsal' e-mail was 'flat-out racist,' Paladino reportedly replied, 'I apologize to you and everyone if that is offensive. to me its just humor. i'm not racist and have never related obamas color to my political distaste for him.'


The Buffalo News reports that Paladino did not deny sending the e-mails at an event today. He called them 'just another liberal Democrat blog smear.'"

[Pork Chop]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_n_word_feud


Three Democratic congressmen — all black — say they heard racial slurs as they walked through thousands of angry protesters outside the U.S. Capitol. A white lawmaker says he heard the epithets too. Conservative activists say the lawmakers are lying.

What does the video show? Not much. Indeed, new interviews show that a much-viewed YouTube recording cited as evidence by conservatives was actually shot well after the time in question.

[David Jamieson]

Yes I suppose when you do enough ass hat things that you finally realize that you are a huge ass hat, then being an ass hat and stuck in your ass hat ways you will naturally tend towards blaming someone else for your funky stew of ass hat actions. lol

No one needs to infiltrate the tea party to make them look like idiots and ass hats. They're doing a great job all by themselves.

lol

[1bad65]

No one needs to infiltrate the tea party to make them look like idiots and ass hats.

Apparently they do.

[SanHeChuan]

;)

Bah it’s just a tea party counter intelligence operation. This Jason Levin (a Jewish name :rolleyes:) is obviously a fake persona as is the website. All set up to blame liberals on any unsavory acts that come out of their own party. Ingenious. Ask yourself this why you would you make a public announcement that you plan to secretly undermine the tea party, how does that advance your cause? :p

:D

[David Jamieson]

they need an excuse for all the racists, ill educated, throwbacks that are naturally attracted to throwing in with their ranks.

The problem with the tea party movement is that it is artificial and created by fox news and desperate americans who want to be on the Glenn Beck show so they can cry and eat a sandwich at the same time! lol:p

[1bad65]

;)Bah it’s just a tea party counter intelligence operation. This Jason Levin (a Jewish name :rolleyes:) is obviously a fake persona as is the website. All set up to blame liberals on any unsavory acts that come out of their own party. Ingenious. Ask yourself this why you would you make a public announcement that you plan to secretly undermine the tea party, how does that advance your cause? :p

And you liberals call us conspiracy theorists. :rolleyes:

Desperation is why this idiot is doing what he is doing.

[1bad65]

The problem with the tea party movement is that it is artificial and created by fox news and desperate americans who want to be on the Glenn Beck show so they can cry and eat a sandwich at the same time! lol:p

We will see how artificial it is in November. ;)

[SanHeChuan]

Desperation is why this idiot is doing what he is doing.

Desperation? The tea party is a greater threat to republicans than it is to Democrats.
Desperation doesn't happen until you're out of power. :p
Where does this fantasy desperation come from?

[dimethylsea]

We will see how artificial it is in November. ;)


You do realize the quite apart from our differing views on politics the fact is.. we can certainly both do the math.

The tea party folks push the GOP further to the right. This makes them (on a national level) run more conservative candidates who use more conservative rhetoric. This makes them less electable in the general elections (though it does help assure they lock down their primary).

We can argue about who's correct in ideology all day long.. but if the Left had a structurally similar movement (say a Radical Green Worker's Party, avowing open socialism and currency controls or something) that would do the same things to the Dems.

The Tea Party is courting an electoral disaster for the GOP. Does anyone remember what happened to Perot's "Reform Party"?

[David Jamieson]

We will see how artificial it is in November. ;)

will we?

ok. lol.

you've been duped.

tea party is all fluff and chest puff. no substance, nothing but riff raff.
by the wayside they shall be.

Oh, and when Obama gets his second term, please do not cry about it for 4 more years. :p

[1bad65]

Desperation? The tea party is a greater threat to republicans than it is to Democrats.

Tell that to Martha Coakley.


Where does this fantasy desperation come from?

It becomes reality in November. Quote me on that. :D

[1bad65]

will we?

tea party is all fluff and chest puff. no substance, nothing but riff raff.
by the wayside they shall be.

Wanna put a ban bet on it?

If the Republicans don't take either chamber, I'm banned.
If the Republicans take both chambers, you're banned.
If we take one and not the other, it's a push.

You gonna put your money where your mouth is?

[1bad65]

You do realize the quite apart from our differing views on politics the fact is.. we can certainly both do the math.

The tea party folks push the GOP further to the right. This makes them (on a national level) run more conservative candidates who use more conservative rhetoric. This makes them less electable in the general elections (though it does help assure they lock down their primary).

If you are correct, why do liberals/socialists always run to the center instead of saying how left they are?

Republicans always win national elections when they run conservative.

The two biggest GOP Presidential victories were won by who? ;)

[Reality_Check]

You do realize the quite apart from our differing views on politics the fact is.. we can certainly both do the math.

The tea party folks push the GOP further to the right. This makes them (on a national level) run more conservative candidates who use more conservative rhetoric. This makes them less electable in the general elections (though it does help assure they lock down their primary).

We can argue about who's correct in ideology all day long.. but if the Left had a structurally similar movement (say a Radical Green Worker's Party, avowing open socialism and currency controls or something) that would do the same things to the Dems.

The Tea Party is courting an electoral disaster for the GOP. Does anyone remember what happened to Perot's "Reform Party"?

I'm actually curious to see how this turns out on a national level. We already saw it in microcosm last year with Doug Hoffman in NY's 23rd District. The seat had been held by Republicans for over a century. Dede Scozzafava was seen as not conservative enough, so she was pushed out in favor of Hoffman. The result was a victory by Democrat Bill Owens.

[dimethylsea]

If you are correct, why do liberals/socialists always run to the center instead of saying how left they are?
[/B] ;)


That's precisely my point.. politicians who run like they are centrists tend to do better in the general election that people who hard to either right or left do.

[David Jamieson]

That's precisely my point.. politicians who run like they are centrists tend to do better in the general election that people who hard to either right or left do.

I dunno, McCain is more or less a centrist conservative.
He lost.

He could've won if not for Bush being put in as the front man for the GOP, It realy should've been McCain.

Dude probably tastes bile every time he swallows.
Poor dude has watched his party turn into a freakshow 3 ring circus.
Conservatism in America is fractured and practically dead, Overrun with Neo-con idiots who are like throw backs to the McCarthy era. Or it's tea party whackos who want that moniker of "conservative real american" and then you have incredibly silly people like Sarah Palin deciding she's gonna tell you who's american and who's not based on whether or not they throw their hat in with her?

America, you got some problems. lol
But then, so does our country. We have the same fractured conservatives here as well. Fiscally responsible, small government with strong oversight is simply not available. It's dead.

We get martial law proponents who want the rich and wealthy to finance the corporate take over of the country because they make jobs :rolleyes:

We get the libertarians who all want to break off into little unstable nations and hide in caves with guns and bible.

We get secessionists, not unlike the breakoff libertarians, except they want to go out with a bang it seems.

and then you got your other side of the coin where you have teh exact opposite of these.

A centrist in a true sense is a rare beast and it is more because the society we live in and that political constructs we are functioning with are profoundly broken.

Sure we live longer, sure we live better, but at what cost?

[SanHeChuan]

Sure we live longer, sure we live better, but at what cost?

Cost... Um, we get to live longer and better.

[David Jamieson]

Cost... Um, we get to live longer and better.

who is we? :)

[1bad65]

I'm actually curious to see how this turns out on a national level. We already saw it in microcosm last year with Doug Hoffman in NY's 23rd District. The seat had been held by Republicans for over a century. Dede Scozzafava was seen as not conservative enough, so she was pushed out in favor of Hoffman. The result was a victory by Democrat Bill Owens.

Scozzafava and Hoffman split the vote. If you add their votes together, it's actually more than the Democrat got. And in that race, the Republican who dropped out actually endorsed the Democrat!

[1bad65]

That's precisely my point.. politicians who run like they are centrists tend to do better in the general election that people who hard to either right or left do.

Ronald Reagan disproved that. And he won two landslides, the biggest the GOP has ever won. :D

[Reality_Check]

Scozzafava and Hoffman split the vote. If you add their votes together, it's actually more than the Democrat got. And in that race, the Republican who dropped out actually endorsed the Democrat!

That is exactly my point. The ideological purity test cost the Republicans the seat.

[1bad65]

That is exactly my point. The ideological purity test cost the Republicans the seat.

Hoffman was not a Republican. He was a Conservative Party member. Had they nominated a conservative in the first place, rather than a liberal with an (R) next to her name, they would have likely kept the seat.

[dimethylsea]

Ronald Reagan disproved that. And he won two landslides, the biggest the GOP has ever won. :D

Yes but even Reagan was not as far to the right as many in the present GOP squawk section.

FOX News and the GOP had a field day with Obama signing the nuke treaty.. but it's the sort of thing Reagan did and spoke in favor of.

Again.. we will see come November. My suspicion is that the Demos will keep both houses by a narrow margin.

The more interesting question I would put to you is this..

ASSUMING the Demos keep 51 votes in the Senate after November (certainly within the realm of possibility I think you will grant) what are the chances of a change in the Senate rules to modify the filibuster privileges of Senators?

I'm curious.. what do you think is likely (assuming the Demos don't lose the Senate by some freak electoral wave)

[Reality_Check]

Hoffman was not a Republican. He was a Conservative Party member. Had they nominated a conservative in the first place, rather than a liberal with an (R) next to her name, they would have likely kept the seat.

Yes, he did run on the Conservative Party line, but he had enormous support from the Republican machine (for lack of a better word).

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district_special_ele ction,_2009)

Former US Senator Fred Thompson
Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer
New York State Right to Life Political Action Committee
Columnist Michelle Malkin
Columnist Bill Kristol
RedState
Talk radio host Mark Levin
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh
Talk radio host Sean Hannity
Talk radio host Glenn Beck
Talk radio host Hugh Hewitt
Talk radio host Michael Medved
Talk radio host Laura Ingraham
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
Representative Michele Bachmann
Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin
Former US Senator Rick Santorum
Representative Todd Tiahrt
Former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes
Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty
James Dobson
Representative John Linder, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee
New York Post
US Senator Jim DeMint
Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Representative Tom Cole, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee
Representative Todd Akin
Representative Steve King
Representative Jeff Flake
Publisher Alfred Regnery
Conservative writer Richard Viguerie
Governor of Texas Rick Perry
Representative Mary Fallin
Representative Paul Broun
Representative John C. Fleming
Representative John Shadegg
Former Governor of New York and First Lady of New York George Pataki and Libby Pataki
Captain Scott O'Grady, United States Air Force (retired)
Mayor of Plattsburgh Donald Kasprzak (originally endorsed Scozzafava)
Representative Darrell Issa (originally endorsed Scozzafava)
Representative Pete Sessions, chairman of the NRCC (originally endorsed Scozzafava)
Representative Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip
Representative John Boehner, House Minority Leader (originally endorsed Scozzafava)
Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee
Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee
Representative Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (originally endorsed Scozzafava)
Former Representative and 2010 Gubernatorial Candidate Rick Lazio
New York State Young Republicans
Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb
Former Governor of Colorado Bill Owens

Scozzafava was leading Owens in the polls 35% to 27% as of 10/1/08. Once Hoffman entered the race, that lead evaporated to 33% to 29% as of 10/15/08, in favor of Owens with Hoffman at 23%.

Now, would Scozzafava still have trailed Owens without Hoffman entering the race? I don't know. Though it does appear that Republicans/Conservatives shot themselves in the foot by using an ideological purity test on Scozzafava. By running someone to her right, they lost the election.

[1bad65]

Now, would Scozzafava still have trailed Owens without Hoffman entering the race? I don't know. Though it does appear that Republicans/Conservatives shot themselves in the foot by using an ideological purity test on Scozzafava. By running someone to her right, they lost the election.

If they had nominated a candidate more in line with the outgoing Republican Congressman, they wouldn't have had a 3rd Party candidate enter the race. Instead they nominated Scozzafava, who is more liberal than many Democrats.

I notice you have not mentioned the US Senate election in Massachusetts to replace the guy who killed Mary Jo Kapechne....

[MasterKiller]

I notice you have not mentioned the US Senate election in Massachusetts to replace the guy who killed Mary Jo Kapechne....

You mean the guy all the Tea Partiers are p1ssed at for being centrist and nonpartisan? LOL!

[1bad65]

Yes but even Reagan was not as far to the right as many in the present GOP squawk section.

Yes he was. Can you name a GOP candidate nominated since Reagan that you consider further right? If so, how did he/she do in the election?


ASSUMING the Demos keep 51 votes in the Senate after November (certainly within the realm of possibility I think you will grant) what are the chances of a change in the Senate rules to modify the filibuster privileges of Senators?

I'm curious.. what do you think is likely (assuming the Demos don't lose the Senate by some freak electoral wave)

If they keep control, I would not be surprised if they changed the rules to suit themselves. They have a history of doing this. They shot through a bill in New Jersey putting Lautenberg on the ballot well after the date to be on the ballot had passed because the current Democrat on the ballot (Torricelli) was facing corruption charges and behind in the polls. Also, they attempted to change the laws TWICE within 10 years in Massachusetts to benefit themselves in US Senate elections. First, they changed it to a special election to replace Senators who left early because they felt Kerry would beat Bush and they had a Republican Governor at the time (Romney). Once the Democrat Corzine became Governor and Mary Jo Kepechne's killer got brain cancer, they tried to change it back to the Governor appointing the new Senator.

[David Jamieson]

Wanna put a ban bet on it?

If the Republicans don't take either chamber, I'm banned.
If the Republicans take both chambers, you're banned.
If we take one and not the other, it's a push.

You gonna put your money where your mouth is?

lol. money eh.

how much you got? :D

why do you make these emotional tantrums in print?
You chip away at your own credibility with this kind of stuff.

The problem with this is that I don't trust you to leave and ban yourself. You don't have that capacity for admission of wrong.
One can see that by simply reading through any one of your hundreds of blinders on neo-con ditto head diatribes that you lay down wherever you go.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes, and in November, We'll have a good laugh and see where it goes form there.

In the meantime, paxil man, paxil could be your friend! lol :p

[Reality_Check]

If they had nominated a candidate more in line with the outgoing Republican Congressman, they wouldn't have had a 3rd Party candidate enter the race. Instead they nominated Scozzafava, who is more liberal than many Democrats.

I notice you have not mentioned the US Senate election in Massachusetts to replace the guy who killed Mary Jo Kapechne....

Why would I? He didn't force out another candidate who failed an ideological purity test. Which is what I'm discussing. I also didn't mention Ted Deutch (D) defeating Ed Lynch (R) to take over Robert Wexler's seat in Florida's 19th District. Lynch ran an anti-Obama campaign (anti-HCR, anti-stimulus). He was crushed by 26 points (62% to 36%). Oh wait, I guess I did mention it. :D

[1bad65]

The problem with this is that I don't trust you to leave and ban yourself. You don't have that capacity for admission of wrong.

You really want to go there? I can bring up many posts of mine where I admit I was mistaken.

I'll contact Gene, and reference the ban bet in my sig so all can see. And MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber. I constantly speak of the rule of law, and being honest, no way I'd not honor my word. You're copping out.


One can see that by simply reading through any one of your hundreds of blinders on neo-con ditto head diatribes that you lay down wherever you go.

WTF is this supposed to mean?

[MasterKiller]

MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber.

Only Gene can ban.

[1bad65]

Why would I? He didn't force out another candidate who failed an ideological purity test.

My point is the upcoming elections. When an unknown takes a Senate seat held by Democrats for like 50 years in friggin Massachusetts, you know it's gonna be ugly come November.


I also didn't mention Ted Deutch (D) defeating Ed Lynch (R) to take over Robert Wexler's seat in Florida's 19th District. Lynch ran an anti-Obama campaign (anti-HCR, anti-stimulus). He was crushed by 26 points (62% to 36%). Oh wait, I guess I did mention it. :D

That's a huge Democrat district. No one expected the GOP to win that one. But big name pollsters are predicting a huge win for the GOP in November. Just last week, Dick Morris predicted they would take both Houses of Congress. I'm almost certain they will win the House, the Senate will be closer. I believe they have to win 10 out of 11 Democrat held Senate seats up for grabs. They can do it, but it's no way guaranteed.

[1bad65]

Only Gene can ban.

I was wrong (Oh wait, I never admit that), but you're a mod who will see I put my account on the line.

You guys may not like me, but you know I'll honor my word. Plus, it's your chance to get rid of me. ;)

[Reality_Check]

My point is the upcoming elections. When an unknown takes a Senate seat held by Democrats for like 50 years in friggin Massachusetts, you know it's gonna be ugly come November.

But a Democrat taking a House seat that's been held by the Republican's for over 100 years is not important? Alrighty then...

I'd also like to point out that, unlike you with NY's 23rd and FL's 19th, I haven't made any excuses for the loss by the Democrat in Massachusetts.


That's a huge Democrat district. No one expected the GOP to win that one. But big name pollsters are predicting a huge win for the GOP in November. Just last week, Dick Morris predicted they would take both Houses of Congress. I'm almost certain they will win the House, the Senate will be closer. I believe they have to win 10 out of 11 Democrat held Senate seats up for grabs. They can do it, but it's no way guaranteed.

No offense, Dick Morris is a partisan hack, not a pollster.

I usually follow Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. He's usually pretty reliable.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/democrats-now-project-to-hold-average.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/generic-ballot-points-toward-possible.html

[1bad65]

But a Democrat taking a House seat that's been held by the Republican's for over 100 years is not important? Alrighty then...

I'd also like to point out that, unlike you with NY's 23rd and FL's 19th, I haven't made any excuses for the loss by the Democrat in Massachusetts.

It's not excuses, it's facts. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate in the New York race. She dropped out. And more votes were cast for her and Hoffman then for the Democrat. And that Florida race is in a dark blue district.


No offense, Dick Morris is a partisan hack, not a pollster.

For who? After all, he worked for Bill Clinton and now works for FoxNews. Sounds balanced to me.

And he has worked as a pollster and a campaign consultant.


I usually follow Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. He's usually pretty reliable.

Then encourage him to bet me. If you guys get rid of me, you will have cut the number of conservatives on this site by about half. ;)

[Reality_Check]

It's not excuses, it's facts. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate in the New York race. She dropped out. And more votes were cast for her and Hoffman then for the Democrat. And that Florida race is in a dark blue district.

LMAO!!!! She was forced out. Perhaps if all of those people who decided to back a third party candidate (instead of enforcing an ideological purity test) backed her, the Republicans would have retained the seat.

Wouldn't it have been better to have someone who supported some of your goals in office as opposed to someone who supports little to none of them?

And the fact that Hoffman ended up splitting the vote proves my point. Enforcing ideological purity cost them the seat.

[kfson]

"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, ****phobic and moronic.



It sounds like they will be using falsehoods?

[David Jamieson]

You really want to go there? I can bring up many posts of mine where I admit I was mistaken. do it!


I'll contact Gene, and reference the ban bet in my sig so all can see. And MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber. I constantly speak of the rule of law, and being honest, no way I'd not honor my word. You're copping out. obeying your ridiculous challenge which really amounts to a control/ego issue with you as an individual isn't me copping out, it's you being weird. lol Huge difference! :)




WTF is this supposed to mean? I think it's pretty straight forward.
But I could say it again. You come across as a neo-con ditto head who blathers out diatribes all over the place, chooses what to speak to, does not choose to answer for deliberate answers and often seems to hope that the more erroneous postings he makes sink to the bottom and get forgotten before he goes on another partisan tirade filled with bile and vitriol.

In other words, politically, I have no respect for your mind, or your position.
You may hold that opinion yourself of me. :) It matters not, BUt I'm really not interested in playing your chest puffing games of ban promises and other infantile gilry games on a freaking forum. lol so lame dude! :p

[1bad65]

LMAO!!!! She was forced out. Perhaps if all of those people who decided to back a third party candidate (instead of enforcing an ideological purity test) backed her, the Republicans would have retained the seat.

Forced out by who? She had every legal right to be on that ballot, she chose to drop out.


Wouldn't it have been better to have someone who supported some of your goals in office as opposed to someone who supports little to none of them?

That's one of my points. In many areas, the Democrat Owens was more conservative than the Republican Scozzafava.


And the fact that Hoffman ended up splitting the vote proves my point. Enforcing ideological purity cost them the seat.

They stood by their morals. That used to a trait we admired in people.

Again, had the Republicans nominated someone with similar beliefs as the Republican who vacated the seat, Hoffman wouldn't have ran. The people there did not want a lberal, yet the Republicans nominated one. Conservatives (unlike many Democrat demographics), do not go to the polls and just pull the lever simply due to the letter on it. We tend to vote on issues, not mainly along Party lines.

[1bad65]

do it!

Wil do. And I'll bet you don't admit you were wrong in saying I never admit I'm wrong.


obeying your ridiculous challenge which really amounts to a control/ego issue with you as an individual isn't me copping out, it's you being weird. lol Huge difference! :)

You just know will likely lose.


As to the 3rd area of your post, I do make up my own mind. I'm socially liberal, and very fiscally conservative. But since I don't make up my mind, I'll allow you to prove it. Simply find one my posts where I parrrot talking points, speeches, manifestos, etc and I do not credit the original author, speaker, etc. Just one example. I'll bet you cant. :D

[1bad65]

Fair enough, and I stand corrected on Grambling.


I stand corrected.


I stand corrected. You are indeed correct.
http://kungfuqigong.com/forum/showpost.php?p=994338&postcount=31


I stand corrected.


I was unaware anyone died in the anthrax attacks. The intended targets were not killed, and that confused me. I stand corrected.



I stand corrected.

So, I have backed up my assertion. Now it's your turn....;)

[David Jamieson]

http://kungfuqigong.com/forum/showpost.php?p=994338&postcount=31







So, I have backed up my assertion. Now it's your turn....;)

You've done nothing but copy and paste the phrase "i stand corrected"
also, I never made any assertions, so I don't have to back any up.

:)

Not that it mattered, I just said "do it" as a lark.
I'm actually having a chuckle at your expense for going and digging around.
You actualy did it, you poor fool.

oh well. :p

[1bad65]

You've done nothing but copy and paste the phrase "i stand corrected"

Which shows I admit when I was incorrect.



also, I never made any assertions, so I don't have to back any up.

Screw you. You've repeatedly called me a racist, and called the Tea Party folks racists as well.

One more thing; Are you admitting to trolling?

[1bad65]

You actualy did it, you poor fool.

I'd rather be a fool than run my mouth and then not have the balls to bet someone who says I'm wrong.

[Reality_Check]

Forced out by who? She had every legal right to be on that ballot, she chose to drop out.

Whom, not who. ;)

Forced out by a lack of money as those who would have donated to her campaign donated to Doug Hoffman's instead.


They stood by their morals. That used to a trait we admired in people.

Again, had the Republicans nominated someone with similar beliefs as the Republican who vacated the seat, Hoffman wouldn't have ran. The people there did not want a lberal, yet the Republicans nominated one. Conservatives (unlike many Democrat demographics), do not go to the polls and just pull the lever simply due to the letter on it. We tend to vote on issues, not mainly along Party lines.

Stood by their morals? That's awesome! So, instead of having someone that the local Republican leadership (you know, the people who know the district?) chose, people from out of state thought they knew better, and it cost the Republicans the seat. An ideological purity test ended up being a failure. We'll see if further such tests cost them more elections.

[David Jamieson]

Which shows I admit when I was incorrect.




Screw you. You've repeatedly called me a racist, and called the Tea Party folks racists as well.

One more thing; Are you admitting to trolling?


more chest puffing and posing.

This is your MO dude.

You can be read like a book, although your substance would make it more like a pamphlet. From the day you dragged yourself in here from trollshido.

Yes I called tea party members racist. You know, the ones with teh epithets they shout and the signs they hold that are photographed with their out and out hatred and racism? Yeah those guys.

You, I put you into the category of racist by proxy because you throw in with the tasteless pack of fools who ARE racist..

I guess you figure you're some kind of internet warrior though. I mean, I really do think that seeing as that is how your present yourself and make the content of your posts.

pretty much nothing but propaganda for the right wing.

Virtually zero posts about chinese martial arts.

at least you're hanging around in the dumpster now. :p

[1bad65]

Forced out by a lack of money as those who would have donated to her campaign donated to Doug Hoffman's instead.

So the people were speaking through their campaign donations that Hoffman was much more electable. She wasn't going to win, period. However, the fact that she endorsed the Democrat over Hoffman truly shows her liberal leanings.


Stood by their morals? That's awesome! So, instead of having someone that the local Republican leadership (you know, the people who know the district?) chose, people from out of state thought they knew better, and it cost the Republicans the seat. An ideological purity test ended up being a failure. We'll see if further such tests cost them more elections.

I think you have it backwards. I believe she was not chosen by the local Republicans. I think it was the national GOP who chose her. And the local Republicans wanted Hoffman to run. Remember, there was no primary in either Party.

Something else of interest: "The chair of the New York Democratic Party stated that Scozzafava's husband had spoken with key local Democrats about the possibility of her switching to the Democratic Party before running for the seat."
Source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/07/democrats-fan-the-flames-of-sc.html

[Reality_Check]

That's one of my points. In many areas, the Democrat Owens was more conservative than the Republican Scozzafava.

I missed this one. Do you have any evidence that Bill Owens is more conservative than Dede Scozzafava? Especially considering that he voted for HCR.

[1bad65]

more chest puffing and posing.

And more ducking from you.


This is your MO dude.

And we can see your MO involves calling people you dont agree with racists. You're an *******, and an ******* who can't debate on the issues.


Yes I called tea party members racist. You know, the ones with teh epithets they shout and the signs they hold that are photographed with their out and out hatred and racism? Yeah those guys.

You, I put you into the category of racist by proxy because you throw in with the tasteless pack of fools who ARE racist..

And yet you provided NOT ONE example of a racist speaker ant ANY Tea Party event. Also, I showed liberals admitting they use plants at Tea Parties to make them look racist. So you're either ignorant of the facts, or you choose to keep calling names because you can't debate on the issues. Which is it?


I guess you figure you're some kind of internet warrior though. I mean, I really do think that seeing as that is how your present yourself and make the content of your posts.

You are matching me post for post. And you're the one who started the name-calling.


at least you're hanging around in the dumpster now. :p

And I found you here as well. ;)

[Reality_Check]

I think you have it backwards. I believe she was not chosen by the local Republicans. I think it was the national GOP who chose her. And the local Republicans wanted Hoffman to run. Remember, there was no primary in either Party.

Actually no, you have it backwards.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/gop_picks_candidate_for_congre.html

"State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava beat out a field of eight other Republicans on Wednesday to pick up the GOP endorsement for the 23rd Congressional District seat...

The six-term Assembly member picked up the endorsement Wednesday after a meeting of the 11 Republican county committee chairs, who had interviewed the candidates at a series of regional meetings over the past month.

The chairs said they were impressed with Scozzafava's experience, commitment, service and dedication to the region. She has been a lifelong resident of the North Country.

Jim Ellis, the Franklin County and Northern Region vice chairman who oversaw the nomination process, said Scozzafava is the right person to succeed nine-term Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor."

[1bad65]

I missed this one. Do you have any evidence that Bill Owens is more conservative than Dede Scozzafava? Especially considering that he voted for HCR.

I said in some areas, not all areas.

She is pro-death on abortion, pro- same sex marriage, and she has strong Union ties. And again, she considered switching parties before the election.

[Reality_Check]

And yet you provided NOT ONE example of a racist speaker ant ANY Tea Party event.

Um...I did. Not to get in between the love fest or anything...


So I guess Carl Paladino is just a plant, huh?

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wned/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1635208/WNED-AM.970.NEWS/Tea.Party.Express.Rolls.into.Buffalo

"Among the speakers will be Buffalo developer Carl Paladino, who just announced he's running for governor."

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/12/1016974/paladino-accused-of-sending-racist.html

"Buffalo's Carl P. Paladino was scrambling to save his Republican candidacy for governor Monday after a local Web site released a string of pornographic and racially degrading e-mails that he acknowledged forwarding to a large group of friends."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002299-503544.html

"A Tea Party darling, Paladino reportedly sent an e-mail depicting a horse having sex with a woman and another that included a pornographic video and the headline 'Miss France 2008 F[***]ing.' He also reportedly sent out an e-mail depicting President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as a pimp and prostitute and one showing an airplane landing near black men with the caption 'Holy Sh*t. run ni**ers, run!'


After one respondent complained that the 'Obama Inauguration Rehearsal' e-mail was 'flat-out racist,' Paladino reportedly replied, 'I apologize to you and everyone if that is offensive. to me its just humor. i'm not racist and have never related obamas color to my political distaste for him.'


The Buffalo News reports that Paladino did not deny sending the e-mails at an event today. He called them 'just another liberal Democrat blog smear.'"

[Reality_Check]

I said in some areas, not all areas.

She is pro-death on abortion, pro- same sex marriage, and she has strong Union ties. And again, she considered switching parties before the election.

And Bill Owens is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and the Unions don't like him?

[1bad65]

Actually no, you have it backwards.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/gop_picks_candidate_for_congre.html

"State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava beat out a field of eight other Republicans on Wednesday to pick up the GOP endorsement for the 23rd Congressional District seat...

I don't see where it references a primary. Can you point that out please?


The six-term Assembly member picked up the endorsement Wednesday after a meeting of the 11 Republican county committee chairs, who had interviewed the candidates at a series of regional meetings over the past month.

The chairs said they were impressed with Scozzafava's experience, commitment, service and dedication to the region. She has been a lifelong resident of the North Country.

Jim Ellis, the Franklin County and Northern Region vice chairman who oversaw the nomination process, said Scozzafava is the right person to succeed nine-term Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor."

Were these 11 Republican county committee chairs residents of the 23rd Congressional District?

[1bad65]

And Bill Owens is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and the Unions don't like him?

What part of "in some areas" are you not getting? I believe she has a higher rating from NOW than Owens does.

Either way, can you name 1 GOP Congressman who is pro-death on abortion, and pro gay marriage? I cant....

[David Jamieson]

And more ducking from you.

I ducked nothing. I pointed out your challenge was empty and moot and I refuse to play. :) There's a difference.




And we can see your MO involves calling people you don't agree with racists. You're an *******, and an ******* who can't debate on the issues. My final arguments or even discussions weren't about you being racist. That was a small bit that revealed itself in the course of events as they took place.




And yet you provided NOT ONE example of a racist speaker ant ANY Tea Party event. Also, I showed liberals admitting they use plants at Tea Parties to make them look racist. So you're either ignorant of the facts, or you choose to keep calling names because you can't debate on the issues. Which is it? Are you saying there's no racism in the tea parties? I'm saying there is and whether or not shadowy liberals are planting themselves in there is irrelevant. The bottom line is that much of the sentiment of the tea party diatribes is racist. Any good points are lost in this stain. Kind of like what has happened with Rush Limbaugh. When he first started way back in the 80's/90's he was great! Now it's a complete 180 and he's a fat drug addicted weirdo ranting and raving! Following the first Gulf war, I actually admired him as a pundit with good points and strong criticisms. Now, he's a joke and a shell of his former self and a detriment to conservatism in North America. Seriously man, I don't think these people have a clue as to what a conservative is. I don't think you know what a liberal is either.




You are matching me post for post. And you're the one name-calling. lol sure 1bad. You do realize there are plenty of examples of you spewing invectives at me in this thread right?




And I found you here as well. ;) yup, I like to see what people are throwing away now and then. I would wager that you will find more iof my posts in the other forums and most of them dealing with chinese martial arts as is the flavour here though. :)

and you?

[1bad65]

Um...I did. Not to get in between the love fest or anything...

So how in the world is the average Tea Party member supposed to know the content of his e-mails? :rolleyes:

I asked for a speaker spouting racism from the podium. And also, is this guy still invited to Tea Party events? I'd wager he is not.

[1bad65]

I'm saying there is and whether or not shadowy liberals are planting themselves in there is irrelevant.

That about sums you up.


lol sure 1bad. You do realize there are plenty of examples of you spewing invectives at me in this thread right?

If I repeatedly kept calling you and people you identify with a bunch of child molesters, I'd expect you to be pretty upset.

We have been civil in the past. And i'll be civil again if you stop calling me and the Tea Party folks racists. Of course if I post racism, or Tea Parties start having speakers spewing racism from the podium, feel free to call me/them racists.

Until then, I ask that you stop calling me/them racists.

[Reality_Check]

I don't see where it references a primary. Can you point that out please?



Were these 11 Republican county committee chairs residents of the 23rd Congressional District?

There was no primary as it was a special election. And yes. BTW, Doug Hoffman was not a resident of NY's 23rd District.

"Upon the failure to elect to any office, except that of governor or lieutenant-governor, at a general or special election, at which such office is authorized to be filled, or upon the death or disqualification of a person elected to office before the commencement of his official term, or upon the occurrence of a vacancy in any elective office which cannot be filled by appointment for a period extending to or beyond the next general election at which a person may be elected thereto, the governor may in his discretion make proclamation of a special election to fill such office, specifying the district or county in which the election is to be held, and the day thereof, which shall be not less than thirty nor more than forty days from the date of the proclamation."

http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/Pubofc/pubofc04.html

[Reality_Check]

What part of "in some areas" are you not getting? I believe she has a higher rating from NOW than Owens does.

You haven't provided any details of your statement that she is more liberal "in some areas" as I've asked. Please do so.


Either way, can you name 1 GOP Congressman who is pro-death on abortion, and pro gay marriage? I cant....

I guess that just shows that the Democratic Party is a bigger tent.

[Reality_Check]

I asked for a speaker spouting racism from the podium.

Actually, you didn't specify that in your original request.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1004478&postcount=126


You show me anything like that garbage coming out of a Tea Party speaker.

You did not specify that it had to be spoken from the podium. Just from a person who is/was a speaker at a Tea Party rally. I provided that.

[SanHeChuan]

Actually, you didn't specify that in your original request.

He is always moving those goal posts. ;)

[1bad65]

There was no primary as it was a special election. And yes. BTW, Doug Hoffman was not a resident of NY's 23rd District.

Well, he had to be legally able to run, as he was on the ballot.

I figured there wasn't a primary. Again, I still say the GOP establishment chose poorly. They chose a candidate who was not in line with the outgoing Congressman who had been winning elections in that district.

[1bad65]

You haven't provided any details of your statement that she is more liberal "in some areas" as I've asked. Please do so.

Owens opposes same-sex marriage. Scozzafava supports it.

http://www.observer.com/4850/meet-bill-owens-dccc-approved-non-democrat-house


I guess that just shows that the Democratic Party is a bigger tent.

Well, they do have a KKK Exalted Cyclops as a Senator. And they had a scumbag who drowned a woman in the Senate as well.

[1bad65]

Actually, you didn't specify that in your original request.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1004478&postcount=126

You did not specify that it had to be spoken from the podium. Just from a person who is/was a speaker at a Tea Party rally. I provided that.

I figured we were using common sense here, and not playing semantics. Unless the Tea Party folks can read minds, they wouldn't know there are racists heading the movement unless those individuals spoke publicly about their racism.

[Pork Chop]

Well, they do have a KKK Exalted Cyclops as a Senator. And they had a scumbag who drowned a woman in the Senate as well.

yah you don't get to play that card when the guy in question has made repeated statements regretting that time of his life, repented, and received 100% rating from the NAACP. all while McDonnell's calling for "national confederacy month", while conveniently forgetting to mention slavery, and Haley Barbour's (former head of the RNC) calling slavery in the civil war "no big deal".

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/MS-Governor-Slavery-Omission-No-Big-Deal-1046

[YouKnowWho]

Tea Party folks are:

- Racist (they like to use the "N" word),
- Selfish (they don't care about poor people), and
- Stupid (they don't know that one day they may be poor too).

[David Jamieson]

Tea Party folks are:

- Racist (they like to use the "N" word),
- Selfish (they don't care about poor people), and
- Stupid (they don't know that one day they may be poor too).

Right back to the beginning!

lol

I agree with these statements.

[SanHeChuan]

Crashing the tea party (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0415/Tea-party-vs.-opponents-Low-grade-civil-war-on-tax-day)

A group called Crash the Tea Party is recruiting activists from New Hampshire to California to infiltrate hundreds of planned tea-party events. It’s urging activists to hold up racist signs in order to paint the movement in a negative light.

Tea partyers say they'll bring video cameras to root out any imposters.

Question is will they try to root out anyone who paints the tea party in a negative light, with racism and ignorance, or just the ones they think are party crashers.

I think that would be a good test for them. Is it OK to be racist as long as you’re really on their side?

[1bad65]

yah you don't get to play that card when the guy in question has made repeated statements regretting that time of his life, repented, and received 100% rating from the NAACP.

To me, that shows the NAACP is an ultra-partisan group who defends racists with a (D) next to their names. Remember, that group protested against a black man's nomination to the Supreme Court. I (like Rush) believe they should be called the NAALCP, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People.

[1bad65]

Question is will they try to root out anyone who paints the tea party in a negative light, with racism and ignorance, or just the ones they think are party crashers.

I think that would be a good test for them. Is it OK to be racist as long as you’re really on their side?

Get real. If I go to one and see that garbage, I'll say something. I don't care what their other beliefs are (liberal or conservative), racism is wrong.

And obviously it's ok to be a racist if you are a Democrat.

[Reality_Check]

Get real. If I go to one and see that garbage, I'll say something. I don't care what their other beliefs are (liberal or conservative), racism is wrong.

And obviously it's ok to be a racist if you are a Democrat.

You mean like Strom Thurmond was?

[Pork Chop]

apparently you missed it the first time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJ7-p3IkYE&feature=player_embedded

how bout this?

During the campaign [for MS state governor] a controversy arose when Barbour chose to speak at the Blackhawk Rally, a fundraiser for the Blackhawk "council school" in Blackhawk, Mississippi. Such "council schools", also referred to in Mississippi lexicon as "academies", were established by the White Citizens' Council movement in reaction to the demands for racial integration by the American Civil Rights movement. The Blackhawk rally was hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). A photograph of Barbour with CCC members appeared on the CCC webpage, and some commentators and pundits demanded that Barbour ask for his picture to be removed from the site, but Barbour refused.

FYI

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) is an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes in addition to white nationalism and white separatism.

[MasterKiller]

http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/obama_vs_zombies.jpg

[1bad65]

You mean like Strom Thurmond was?

He was never an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. Actually, I don't think the guy was ever in the KKK. Nice try.

[1bad65]

apparently you missed it the first time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJ7-p3IkYE&feature=player_embedded

how bout this?

Is your point that both Parties have racists in them?

[Reality_Check]

He was never an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. Actually, I don't think the guy was ever in the KKK. Nice try.

So, it's okay to be an unrepentant racist until the end of one's days, but repenting one's past deeds is not okay?

And here I thought Christians were all about forgiveness.

[Pork Chop]

So, it's okay to be an unrepentant racist until the end of one's days, but repenting one's past deeds is not okay?

And here I thought Christians were all about forgiveness.

this

i seem to recall something about pointing out the splinter in someone else's eye before addressing the plank in your own....

[1bad65]

So, it's okay to be an unrepentant racist until the end of one's days, but repenting one's past deeds is not okay?

And here I thought Christians were all about forgiveness.

I believe Thurmon did 'repent' later in life.

Also, Thurmon was a Democrat until around 1964. Had he just stayed a Democrat, the NAALCP and the press would have mentioned his racism about as much as they mention Exalted Cyclops Byrd's racist past.

[SanHeChuan]

Tea party leaders anxious about extremists (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tea_party_concerns;_ylt=Ak6QmiJMGTPXU2nYV0R8moS s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJuMGNrOGk5BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDE 1L3VzX3RlYV9wYXJ0eV9jb25jZXJucwRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzEzB HNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3RlYXBhcnR5bGVhZA--)


Sensitive that poor public perception could sink their movement, some rally planners have uninvited controversial speakers, beefed up security and urged participants to pack cameras to capture evidence of any disrupters. Organizers want to project a peaceful image of people upset by what they consider to be a growing and burdensome federal government.

I'd say progress but that's a dirty word to conservatives. ;)

[1bad65]

And here I thought Christians were all about forgiveness.

You can forgive, but you should never forget. What Exalted Cyclops Byrd wrote was dispicable. And the fact the NAALCP gives him a 100% rating shows where their loyalties lie.

[1bad65]

I'd say progress but that's a dirty word to conservatives. ;)

Unemployment rate when Bush left office: 7.2%
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%

Of course this is progress according to liberals.

[1bad65]

Organizers want to project a peaceful image of people upset by what they consider to be a growing and burdensome federal government.

As opposed to this:

"Allee Butsch suffered a broken leg from the beatdown outside to the SRLC dinner at Brennan’s Restaurant in New Orleans. She had her leg operated on over the weekend and it will take her months to recover. Her boyfriend Joe Brown suffered a broken nose, a broken jaw, and a concussion. They were attacked after leaving the Southern Republican Leadership Conference dinner at Brennan’s Restaurant.

Police are looking for a Caucasian male who appeared to be dirty, in his 20’s, 6′1″ tall, thin build with a thin face. He had a beard and auburn color hair in a pony tail. He was wearing a light color T shirt and dark color pants. Up to 5 men beat the couple after they left the GOP event on Friday night."

It takes alot of courage to get 5 guys and attack one guy and a girl. Of course you guys decry violence, right? And we are the violent ones, right? And you wonder why we support gun rights.

Source:
http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/15/photo-released-of-gop-official-and-boyfriend-beaten-bloody/

[Reality_Check]

Unemployment rate when Bush left office: 7.2%
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%

Of course this is progress according to liberals.

Unemployment when President Carter left office in January 1981: 7.5%
Unemployment rate in January 1982: 8.6%
Unemployment rate in January 1983: 10.4%

Of course this is progress according to Conservatives.

[SanHeChuan]

Unemployment rate when Bush left office: 7.2%
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%

Of course this is progress according to liberals.

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office: 4.2%
Unemployment rate when Bush left office: 7.7% ;)

Increase in unemployment under Bush: 3.5%
Increase in unemplyment under Obama: 2%

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000)

[Pork Chop]

Just to re-iterate, the Council of Conservative Citizens, that Barbour (ie the former head of the RNC) is in bed with, is the same white power movement front that was allowed to recruit at the Tea Party event.

Let that sink in a little bit before you keep attacking Byrd.

----

as far as the couple getting jumped out of the GOP convention, that's a d@mn shame.
but i would hope you're not hinting at accusations with 0 proof.

[SanHeChuan]

It takes alot of courage to get 5 guys and attack one guy and a girl. Of course you guys decry violence, right? And we are the violent ones, right? And you wonder why we support gun rights.

Source:
http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/15/photo-released-of-gop-official-and-boyfriend-beaten-bloody/

Got a legitimate source on that because even the conservative talk radio said it was a false story.

[1bad65]

Unemployment when President Carter left office in January 1981: 7.5%
Unemployment rate in January 1982: 8.6%
Unemployment rate in January 1983: 10.4%

Of course this is progress according to Conservatives.

Nice try. What was it when Reagan left office?

And if you want to compare Reagan to Carter, I can bring up the misery index, inflation, and interest rates. Do you really want to go there?

[1bad65]

Just to re-iterate, the Council of Conservative Citizens, that Barbour (ie the former head of the RNC) is in bed with, is the same white power movement front that was allowed to recruit at the Tea Party event.

If these gatherings are help on public property, they cannot tell someone (who is not breaking the law) to leave. They do have control of who speaks at the podium however, and not one time has any racism been uttered from the podium.


but i would hope you're not hinting at accusations with 0 proof.

I provided a link. What more do you want?

[1bad65]

Got a legitimate source on that because even the conservative talk radio said it was a false story.

Thats news to me. You got a link I can read?

[MasterKiller]

If these gatherings are help on public property, they cannot tell someone (who is not breaking the law) to leave. LOL at holding anti-tax rallies on tax-supported public property.

[Reality_Check]

Nice try. What was it when Reagan left office?

And if you want to compare Reagan to Carter, I can bring up the misery index, inflation, and interest rates. Do you really want to go there?

I'm just using your methods. President Obama has been in office for slightly over a year. Whereas President Reagan had 8 years. Maybe you should hold off on such absurd comparisons until President Obama has had more time.

[David Jamieson]

I'm just using your methods. President Obama has been in office for slightly over a year. Whereas President Reagan had 8 years. Maybe you should hold off on such absurd comparisons until President Obama has had more time.

Truth be told, it was racially motivated hatred that had a lot of these people up in arms when god forbid a black man was voted into the office of POTUS.

From DAY 1 these people have been going on about revolution, to calling him teh antichrist to you name it. Almost none of them can stick to the facts and deal with policy or hot issues and they all want to break out into this ridiculous blathering of lies about everything from kenya to death panels.

there is only one suitable word for an individual who throws in their lot with the ignorant, racist malcontents.

that word is "Moron"

(notice i didn't spell it with an a)

any good points they have are lost in their sea of stupidity. It's unfortunate, but an intelligent man needs an intelligent foil to stimulate thought and action. tea partiers are not providing that level of intelligence or sophistication in their thinking.

Mostly they are revealed as that segment of americans who didn't seem to make it through middle school, have weird religious beliefs and do indeed cling to antiquated ideas and think that guns are an answer to problems in and of themselves.

Thank goodness for free speech though. It lets us see what sort of idiot spawn is wandering around america these days. looks pretty much like the same batch from the 60's really. Those who opposed equal rights and all that other un-american crap they tried to sell as "real america" :rolleyes:

[solo1]

Truth be told, it was racially motivated hatred that had a lot of these people up in arms when god forbid a black man was voted into the office of POTUS.

From DAY 1 these people have been going on about revolution, to calling him teh antichrist to you name it. Almost none of them can stick to the facts and deal with policy or hot issues and they all want to break out into this ridiculous blathering of lies about everything from kenya to death panels.

there is only one suitable word for an individual who throws in their lot with the ignorant, racist malcontents.

that word is "Moron"

(notice i didn't spell it with an a)

any good points they have are lost in their sea of stupidity. It's unfortunate, but an intelligent man needs an intelligent foil to stimulate thought and action. tea partiers are not providing that level of intelligence or sophistication in their thinking.

Mostly they are revealed as that segment of americans who didn't seem to make it through middle school, have weird religious beliefs and do indeed cling to antiquated ideas and think that guns are an answer to problems in and of themselves.

Thank goodness for free speech though. It lets us see what sort of idiot spawn is wandering around america these days. looks pretty much like the same batch from the 60's really. Those who opposed equal rights and all that other un-american crap they tried to sell as "real america" :rolleyes:



sorry Dave but the "idiot spawn" of the 60s you refer to are now running the country.

[1bad65]

LOL at holding anti-tax rallies on tax-supported public property.

Well, considering they pay taxes, what's wrong with them using what they have paid for?

[1bad65]

I'm just using your methods. President Obama has been in office for slightly over a year. Whereas President Reagan had 8 years. Maybe you should hold off on such absurd comparisons until President Obama has had more time.

FYI, the Obama regime has openly said we can expect the unemployment rate to hover between 9-10% for at least another year.

And my methods are using the latest month's numbers, so use Reagan's last month. Notice I didn't pick and choose and use the months it was over 10%.

[1bad65]

Truth be told, it was racially motivated hatred that had a lot of these people up in arms when god forbid a black man was voted into the office of POTUS.

Oh bull****. You didn't see conservatives up in arms when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court. It's his policies we have a problem with, not his race. And notice you continually take the discussion away from policies and back to race, over and over and over....


From DAY 1 these people have been going on about revolution, to calling him teh antichrist to you name it. Almost none of them can stick to the facts and deal with policy or hot issues and they all want to break out into this ridiculous blathering of lies about everything from kenya to death panels.

You're the one who keeps bringing race back up. :rolleyes:


there is only one suitable word for an individual who throws in their lot with the ignorant, racist malcontents.

that word is "Moron"

So since you support known racists like Obama's pastor and Exalted Cyclops Byrd, that makes you a moron.


Mostly they are revealed as that segment of americans who didn't seem to make it through middle school, have weird religious beliefs and do indeed cling to antiquated ideas and think that guns are an answer to problems in and of themselves.

Prove that.


Thank goodness for free speech though. It lets us see what sort of idiot spawn is wandering around america these days. looks pretty much like the same batch from the 60's really. Those who opposed equal rights and all that other un-american crap they tried to sell as "real america" :rolleyes:

Like the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1965? You are aware that a higher percentage of Republican Senators voted 'yes' on it than did Democrat Senators, right? ;)

[Reality_Check]

FYI, the Obama regime has openly said we can expect the unemployment rate to hover between 9-10% for at least another year.

And my methods are using the latest month's numbers, so use Reagan's last month. Notice I didn't pick and choose and use the months it was over 10%.

I'd be more than happy to compare President Reagan's last month in office to President Obama's...at the end of his 2nd term (provided that he is re-elected). That would be a fair comparison. If he's not re-elected, then we can compare his last month to January of 1985. Until then, we should hold off on such foolish comparisons.

[1bad65]

I'd be more than happy to compare President Reagan's last month in office to President Obama's...at the end of his 2nd term (provided that he is re-elected). That would be a fair comparison. If he's not re-elected, then we can compare his last month to January of 1985. Until then, we should hold off on such foolish comparisons.

Since you can't argue the numbers, now we can't use them in the debate. :rolleyes:

Unlike David, at least you didn't reply to my numbers with repeated accusations of racism and stayed on topic.

[Reality_Check]

I provided a link. What more do you want?

I found links on real news sites (not on Andrew Breitbart's partisan site). Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend did suffer injuries. However, there is no evidence thus far that is was politically motivated attack or that the attacker was a liberal.


It takes alot of courage to get 5 guys and attack one guy and a girl. Of course you guys decry violence, right? And we are the violent ones, right? And you wonder why we support gun rights.

So your implicit accusation that liberals attacked her and her boyfriend lacks merit.

[Reality_Check]

Since you can't argue the numbers, now we can't use them in the debate. :rolleyes:

Unlike David, at least you didn't reply to my numbers with repeated accusations of racism and stayed on topic.

No, I have argued the numbers, but I would prefer to argue apples to apples. Choosing only the numbers from the end of President Reagan's 2nd term, compared to 1 year in to President Obama's 1st, is cherry-picking. So, I highlighted those numbers early in President Reagan's 1st term for a more reasonable comparison. Then I noted what they were a year later in order to show that they worsened. Then I made an ironic note on your progress comment.

[1bad65]

I found links on real news sites (not on Andrew Breitbart's partisan site). Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend did suffer injuries. However, there is no evidence thus far that is was politically motivated attack or that the attacker was a liberal.

So your implicit accusation that liberals attacked her and her boyfriend lacks merit.

It's no more implicit than David calling me and the Tea Party folks racist.

[1bad65]

No, I have argued the numbers, but I would prefer to argue apples to apples. Choosing only the numbers from the end of President Reagan's 2nd term, compared to 1 year in to President Obama's 1st, is cherry-picking. So, I highlighted those numbers early in President Reagan's 1st term for a more reasonable comparison. Then I noted what they were a year later in order to show that they worsened. Then I made an ironic note on your progress comment.

Keep in mind, the Reagan Administration admitted that unemplyment would go up. See, they had to raise interest rates to combat the out of control inflation they inherited. When you raise interest rates, this happens. When inflation went down, Reagan once again slashed the interest rates, and unemployment fell rapidly.

Obama, on the other hand, said his stimulus plan would lower unemployment. And he claimed it would happen quickly. Remember him repeatedly using the term "shovel ready jobs"?

[David Jamieson]

Since you can't argue the numbers, now we can't use them in the debate. :rolleyes:

Unlike David, at least you didn't reply to my numbers with repeated accusations of racism and stayed on topic.

You have numbers?
they're intelligible?
they mean something?

because in my point of view there are three kinds of liars:

1) filthy liars

2) filthy **** liars

3) statistics

anyway, I didn't realize you were asking me to play some numbers game.
And even if you did, I'm flattered and even a little curious but I don't go for those back door shenanigans.

And did you seriously just ask me to provide proof that people are well educated when the proof is in their magnificently horrible grammar and there atrocious spelling errors on signs that they plan to make before a rally?

I mean a spelling mistake in a forum is one thing, we're all typing fast.

But these are placards! lol :p

I like how you ask for the obviously impossible and when your ridiculous challenge is unmet you consider that some kind of victory.

you are a weird dude 1bad. Seriously disconnected from reality too it seems! :D

[1bad65]

because in my point of view there are three kinds of liars:

3) statistics

Numbers don't lie. But people who can't argue against them often just play the race card.

[1bad65]

And did you seriously just ask me to provide proof that people are well educated when the proof is in their magnificently horrible grammar and there atrocious spelling errors on signs that they plan to make before a rally?

I mean a spelling mistake in a forum is one thing, we're all typing fast.

But these are placards! lol :p

Like this?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/mlk_small.jpg

[Reality_Check]

It's no more implicit than David calling me and the Tea Party folks racist.

Interesting. You admit you made an accusation with a shred of evidence.

[Reality_Check]

Keep in mind, the Reagan Administration admitted that unemplyment would go up.


FYI, the Obama regime has openly said we can expect the unemployment rate to hover between 9-10% for at least another year.

And my methods are using the latest month's numbers, so use Reagan's last month. Notice I didn't pick and choose and use the months it was over 10%.

Gee, so did the Obama Administration.


Obama, on the other hand, said his stimulus plan would lower unemployment. And he claimed it would happen quickly. Remember him repeatedly using the term "shovel ready jobs"?

And, yes, the stimulus did create jobs. Without it unemployment would likely be much higher.

[1bad65]

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. But 55 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be out of a job in the next year. And more than two-thirds say the recession has been difficult or caused hardship and major life changes. Like most Americans, they think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

And this poll is a CBS News poll, not a Fox News poll, so it counts. :D

[1bad65]

And, yes, the stimulus did create jobs. Without it unemployment would likely be much higher.

Whoa! Whoa!

This type of argument was laughed at here when I pointed out Bush's foreign policy had stopped terrorism on US soil.

[Reality_Check]

Numbers don't lie. But people who can't argue against them often just play the race card.

Just as an aside, one of my friends (who is an economist) likes to comment in meetings that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot. The joke being the 75% number is made up.

It's funnier when he says it.:D

Carry on.

[Pork Chop]

If these gatherings are help on public property, they cannot tell someone (who is not breaking the law) to leave.


Actually, in my first example, with the neo Nazis unfurling a flag of hitler, it was very much demonstrated that they can ask people to leave when not breaking the law. I love your rationalization though, a guy who regrets his (legal) actions from 40 years ago is going to he ll, but your beloved tea party condones open recruiting by a hate group and it's all good coz they're not breaking the law. Obviously you Austin boys are smoking the good stuff.

[1bad65]

...but your beloved tea party condones open recruiting by a hate group and it's all good coz they're not breaking the law. Obviously you Austin boys are smoking the good stuff.

While I do indeed smoke some good stuff, I'm still waiting for proof that the Tea Party condones this stuff.

[Pork Chop]

While I do indeed smoke some good stuff, I'm still waiting for proof that the Tea Party condones this stuff.

I provided a link. What more do you want?

EDIT:
here, I'll help you out:
Okay in MS, but not Roanoke:
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/11/11/disunity-in-the-tea-party-movement/

Almost had some proof for you in Wisconsin:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36164_What_Racism_at_the_Tea_Parties

A view from your side, without his blinders on. Admits racist elements, but maintains that it's not part of the main message (which i think was the type of admission most of us would'e backed off for):
http://politicalintegritynow.com/2010/03/the-tea-party-movement-and-white-supremacist-infiltration/

[1bad65]

I provided a link. What more do you want?

Did that link say they allow/condone racist groups recruiting at Tea Party gatherings? After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

[Reality_Check]

This is interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041503344_2.html?hpid=artslot&sid=ST2010041504798


'Tea party' protesters gather in Washington to rally against taxes, spending

Johnson expressed opposition to Obama. "It's not just because he's black," he said. "I wish I could tell you that I loved this guy, that he was a great president, that I had faith in him. But I have none. Zero."

[SanHeChuan]

This is interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041503344_2.html?hpid=artslot&sid=ST2010041504798

So it's only 1/2 maybe 3/4 because he's black? ;)

[Pork Chop]

Did that link say they allow/condone racist groups recruiting at Tea Party gatherings? After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

my edit was a little late, so go back to it now.
i just couldn't resist using your own tactic back on you.

though, to be honest, my first link had a lot more evidence of CCC being not only allowed to distribute materials & recruit, but doing so successfully than your link did of proving that an assault occurred, let alone by liberals.

[1bad65]

So it's only 1/2 maybe 3/4 because he's black? ;)

Considering every liberal in this debate parrots the 'they are racists' line, I can see why the guy tried to nip that bs argument in the bud.

[1bad65]

though, to be honest, my first link had a lot more evidence of CCC being not only allowed to distribute materials & recruit, but doing so successfully than your link did of proving that an assault occurred, let alone by liberals.

I still maintain (as I did the FIRST time I heard of this group) that you cannot tell they are racist by just looking at their orgs name.

I good question would be; are they still welcome now that it has came out that they are a racist group?

[1bad65]

And one more quick question:

Whan black groups (like the NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton, etc) protested against Bush and Reagan, did conservatives say all those people protesting were racists?

[Reality_Check]

Considering every liberal in this debate parrots the 'they are racists' line, I can see why the guy tried to nip that bs argument in the bud.

Well then, he certainly failed spectacularly. He said: "It's not just because he's black..." That means a part of the opposition is based on President Obama's race.

[Reality_Check]

And one more quick question:

Whan black groups (like the NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton, etc) protested against Bush and Reagan, did conservatives say all those people protesting were racists?

Conservatives have never called Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton racist?

[SanHeChuan]

And one more quick question:

Whan black groups (like the NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton, etc) protested against Bush and Reagan, did conservatives say all those people protesting were racists?

They coined the term "reverse racism".

[Pork Chop]

I good question would be; are they still welcome now that it has came out that they are a racist group?

given your past argument style of a deed in the past can't be forgiven, i can only counter with: if Ted Kennedy stopped driving drunk after realizing it was bad for his political career, does that change what he did?

And yes, the Council of Conservative Citizens is on a bunch of group's watch lists:

The Anti-Defamation League describes the Council of Conservative Citizens as a "white supremacist"[6] organization. The CofCC is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to be part of the "neo-confederate movement." The NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, SPLC (which lists it as a "hate group"[11]) Anti-Defamation League, and even some conservative groups, such as Conservative Political Action Conference,[12] consider the Council of Conservative Citizens a racist and ****phobic organization, pointing to its purported advocacy of white supremacy. This view is partially based on the CofCC's statement of principles, which condemns racial integration (see item 2), immigration by non-Europeans (see item 2), ****sexuality, and interracial marriage (see item 6).[13]
The group has not responded to this charge. According to its opponents, the Council of Conservative Citizens resorts to slanted and inflammatory language and images to promote its message. An April 2005 photo essay on the CCC website showed a selection of gruesome images of decapitated, burnt and mangled bodies of white victims of black violence in South Africa, while the caption states that whites may one day become a minority in the United States, and "it can happen here."[14]

It was a huge deal that they were sponsoring that event that Barbour was at back in 2003. He's even in a lot of pictures embracing members, some of which have appeared on their website, and he refused to take it down when spurred by other party members.

So it's not like this group's coming out of nowhere.

Something tells me CCC will continue to be allowed to Tea Party functions in MS.

That being said, politicians & movements will drop their own grandmothers if they feel it's going to hurt them politically. So asking for overt racism on the podium or continued support/condoning of an openly racist group is a bit of a straw man now that they know that the racism issue could compromise their political power.
Everybody's probably going to be on their best behavior now.
Because, whether they're racist or not, it's very unpopular to be seen as a racist.

[1bad65]

Well then, he certainly failed spectacularly. He said: "It's not just because he's black..." That means a part of the opposition is based on President Obama's race.

I honestly think he just worded the sentence badly. After all, weren't you guys just saying how uneducated they are? ;)

[1bad65]

Conservatives have never called Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton racist?

Those specific individuals, yes. But I asked specifically if the conservatives said "all those people protesting were racists".

[Reality_Check]

I honestly think he just worded the sentence badly. After all, weren't you guys just saying how uneducated they are? ;)

But he's a lawyer (i.e. highly educated). One would think that he would know how to phrase something correctly.

[1bad65]

given your past argument style of a deed in the past can't be forgiven, i can only counter with: if Ted Kennedy stopped driving drunk after realizing it was bad for his political career, does that change what he did?

He openly got wasted in public after he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne.


Something tells me CCC will continue to be allowed to Tea Party functions in MS.

Well, IF they are, please let us all know. I'm betting they wont...


So asking for overt racism on the podium or continued support/condoning of an openly racist group is a bit of a straw man now that they know that the racism issue could compromise their political power.

Explain Obama's pastor then. ;)

[Reality_Check]

Explain Obama's pastor then. ;)

So, Tea Partiers trying to distance themselves from overt racists is okay. President Obama distancing himself from Reverend Wright isn't. Okay, nice to know.

[Pork Chop]

He openly got wasted in public after he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne.


it was a hypothetical
dude's an irish son of a bootlegger
did you really think he was going to sober up? :D

[Pork Chop]

So, Tea Partiers trying to distance themselves from overt racists is okay. President Obama distancing himself from Reverend Wright isn't. Okay, nice to know.

well the NAALCP comment was definitely a "that darn mr kettle, he should be called mr black" kinda moment.

[1bad65]

From DAY 1 these people have been going on about revolution, to calling him teh antichrist to you name it.

Your side did it first:

"WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880/

Man, even the Pope said it! :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

So, Tea Partiers trying to distance themselves from overt racists is okay. President Obama distancing himself from Reverend Wright isn't. Okay, nice to know.

Obama went to that 'church' where that 'pastor' seethed racism for at least 20 years. How long have these Tea Parties even been around, maybe a year?

[1bad65]

it was a hypothetical
dude's an irish son of a bootlegger
did you really think he was going to sober up? :D

All joking aside, there is no excuse for repeatedly getting wasted in public after you murdered an innocent woman while driving drunk.

[Pork Chop]

All joking aside, there is no excuse for repeatedly getting wasted in public after you murdered an innocent woman while driving drunk.

Now this is just scary!
http://stopthemaddness.org/pols.html

this too:
http://www.pulledover.com/National-DWI-News-Links/labels/Politicians%20and%20Public%20Figures%20DWI__DUI%20 News.html

[YouKnowWho]

Obama went to that 'church' ...

I thought Obama is a Muslim. :confused:

[solo1]

Obama went to that 'church' where that 'pastor' seethed racism for at least 20 years. How long have these Tea Parties even been around, maybe a year?

beauty beauty

[David Jamieson]

All joking aside, there is no excuse for repeatedly getting wasted in public after you murdered an innocent woman while driving drunk.


I declare you "King of Trolls"

seriously, your argument points are lamer and lamer. :rolleyes:

Ted Kennedy is dead, Chappaquid**** was resolved before you were born.

and yet, here you are, trolling in a kungfu forum about it.

too strange for words, but there you have it!

[David Jamieson]

ps the word censor is ridiculous and juvenile.

Come on, can someone please fix it.

[Reality_Check]

Obama went to that 'church' where that 'pastor' seethed racism for at least 20 years. How long have these Tea Parties even been around, maybe a year?

Interesting. Especially after this:


I believe Thurmon did 'repent' later in life.

So, "repenting" after a lifetime of racism is okay, but disassociating from a pastor after only 20 years or so isn't?

[1bad65]

So, "repenting" after a lifetime of racism is okay, but disassociating from a pastor after only 20 years or so isn't?

But Thurmond didn't A) Do it as he was campaigning for a higher office; B) Make bs excuses like 'oh, everytime he said those things, i wasnt there'.

[1bad65]

I declare you "King of Trolls"

So because your party has the only ex-KKK member and had the only dirtbag who murdered a woman in the Senate, I'm a troll?

[Reality_Check]

But Thurmond didn't A) Do it as he was campaigning for a higher office; B) Make bs excuses like 'oh, everytime he said those things, i wasnt there'.

Um...Strom Thurmond campaigned for President as a segregationist (read: racist). There is no higher office in the US.

[David Jamieson]

So because your party has the only ex-KKK member and had the only dirtbag who murdered a woman in the Senate, I'm a troll?

Dude I'm a Canadian. Remember?

Oh wait, I guess not, seeing as you are dragging up the ancient past of dead men. lol

Well, what have you got to say about that traitorous Aaron Burr!

that's the real heart of all this isn't it? :D

hahahahahaa.

[MasterKiller]

From one of Thurmond's 1948 Presidential Campaign speeches:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

[David Jamieson]

From one of Thurmond's 1948 Presidential Campaign speeches:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

lol. well he was wrong.

I think there's a lot of hate and racism that goes undealt with in diverse society.

No countries really equal the diversity that is found in the USA, Canada and one or two European countries.

So, we are the bubbling experiment of social consequence.

When you mix in all that emotional stuff with day to day political, you tend to get real fragmentation in the electorate.

Mind you , I think western style democracy is broken because of all the clout it gives to greedy lobbyists which in turn turns it into fascist/capitalism that serves some pf the people but leaves the rest more or less cleverly trapped.

Nothing gets fixed til everything gets broken is generally the way it goes though.
Darkest before the dawn and all that. :)

[1bad65]

Um...Strom Thurmond campaigned for President as a segregationist (read: racist). There is no higher office in the US.

Read my post again. I said Thurmon didn't repent when he was campaigning for President (higher office).

[1bad65]

From one of Thurmond's 1948 Presidential Campaign speeches:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

What Party was he a member of when he said that? ;)

[1bad65]

I think there's a lot of hate and racism that goes undealt with in diverse society.

But we can always count on you liberals to point it out for us. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

What Party was he a member of when he said that? ;)

A 3rd party called The States' Rights Democratic Party.

[1bad65]

So he wasn't a Republican then, correct?

Also, Thurmond won the Democratic primary for the US Senate in 1956.

[MasterKiller]

So he wasn't a Republican then, correct?.

Nope, but Trent Lott was when he said "I want to say this about my state [Mississippi]. When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it, and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

[Pork Chop]

David Duke turned republican, so i don't know see how the "only party with an ex-KKK member" is accurate.

[1bad65]

David Duke turned republican, so i don't know see how the "only party with an ex-KKK member" is accurate.

Duke was never given a dime by the Republicans, nor did any Republicans go down to Louisiana to campaign for him. We did not reward him with a leadership position either. The same cannot be said for Exalted Cyclops Byrd.

[1bad65]

Nope, but Trent Lott was when he said "I want to say this about my state [Mississippi]. When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it, and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

While I do not agree with that statement, I do ask that you post the context of that quote.

[1bad65]

David Duke turned republican, so i don't know see how the "only party with an ex-KKK member" is accurate.

You left out the "in the Senate" part. If you are gonna quote me, please use the entire sentence.

[Reality_Check]

Read my post again. I said Thurmon didn't repent when he was campaigning for President (higher office).

Pray tell, when did he repent?

[David Jamieson]

But we can always count on you liberals to point it out for us. :rolleyes:

bahahahaha, you think I'm a liberal?
Not by a longshot.

Put away that label maker.
You will not get agreeableness from anyone so long as you seek to divide em up.

That is the fundamental error of your approach. You consistently fail to get an aggregate because all you can do is aggravate. lol

and of course say monumentally silly things in support of your diatribes.

[Pork Chop]

You left out the "in the Senate" part. If you are gonna quote me, please use the entire sentence.

well seeing as how the "in the senate" part came after the "only dirtbag who murdered a woman" part, you can understand my confusion.

the kkk was born in the wake of the civil war, to be the militant arm of conservative, southern democrats.
last time i watched glenn beck, it wasn't the conservatives he had the problem with. ;)

[1bad65]

Put away that label maker.

So says the guy who calls people racists over and over and over....:rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Pray tell, when did he repent?

Later than 1948. My point was he didn't repent when he was campaigning for higher office. I believe I've said this 3 times now...

[1bad65]

well seeing as how the "in the senate" part came after the "only dirtbag who murdered a woman" part, you can understand my confusion.

Understandable.


the kkk was born in the wake of the civil war, to be the militant arm of conservative, southern democrats.

Not sure I would use the term 'conservative', but other than that you are correct.


last time i watched glenn beck, it wasn't the conservatives he had the problem with. ;)

Has Mr Beck said he has problems with blacks? Or does he have problems with liberals, Democrats, socialists, etc regarless of race?

[Pork Chop]

I'm going to post this to show that i think neither party has it right, but neither party should be pointing fingers over race. You'll probably use it to promote your "liberals are teh true evil" agenda; but I think it's going to be the most balanced examination of the topic.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=762

The last thing I'm going to say about the Tea Party is reiterating what I said earlier - if you can't play like adults than I want nothing to do with you. Spitting on people, throwing singles at & belittling people with disabilities, and all that other stuff just makes you look ugly and makes your message impossible to take seriously. If the recent furor over racism encourages Tea Party coordinators to be more strict & clean up their act, then I consider that a good thing eventhough I doubt I'll ever agree with any of their politics.

[Reality_Check]

Later than 1948. My point was he didn't repent when he was campaigning for higher office. I believe I've said this 3 times now...

I was just following up on this statement:



So, it's okay to be an unrepentant racist until the end of one's days, but repenting one's past deeds is not okay?

And here I thought Christians were all about forgiveness.

I believe Thurmon did 'repent' later in life.

So, once again, when did Strom Thurmond repent his racism?

[1bad65]

I'm going to post this to show that i think neither party has it right, but neither party should be pointing fingers over race.

100% correct. And honest, I've been trying to think of a way to say the same thing.


The last thing I'm going to say about the Tea Party is reiterating what I said earlier - if you can't play like adults than I want nothing to do with you. Spitting on people, throwing singles at & belittling people with disabilities, and all that other stuff just makes you look ugly and makes your message impossible to take seriously. If the recent furor over racism encourages Tea Party coordinators to be more strict & clean up their act, then I consider that a good thing eventhough I doubt I'll ever agree with any of their politics.

Again I agree. Although I will say on this one that I've never seen proof of them spitting, throwing stuff, or belittling handicapped people.

I do hope that while you agree racism has reared it's ugly head in both Parties, violence is by no means a conservative only issue. Am I right?

[1bad65]

I was just following up on this statement:

So, once again, when did Strom Thurmond repent his racism?

I have no idea, nor do I care. My point was he did not do it while seeking office, which Obama did. I also believe Obama did it for purely political reasons. While we agree that Thurmond's remarks were disgusting, at least he didn't repent them purely for political gain. Do you see where I'm coming from now?

[Reality_Check]

I have no idea, nor do I care. My point was he did not do it while seeking office, which Obama did. I also believe Obama did it for purely political reasons. While we agree that Thurmond's remarks were disgusting, at least he didn't repent them purely for political gain. Do you see where I'm coming from now?

So, it was okay for the Republicans to have an unrepentant racist in the Senate, but not okay for the Democrats to have a man who repented his racist past? So, is the racism okay if there is an R after a politicians name?

[Pork Chop]

Has Mr Beck said he has problems with blacks? Or does he have problems with liberals, Democrats, socialists, etc regarless of race?

i believe the term is "progressives".
in all honesty, i can't sit through mr beck longer than 5 minutes.

[David Jamieson]

So says the guy who calls people racists over and over and over....:rolleyes:


nice try dude, but don't try to backpedal.

If someone holds up a sign with a blatantly racist remark on it, then yes, I will call them a racist.

If someone says something that is racist, then I will indicate that it is so.

If someone hangs out with racists, sympathizes with racists and supports the agenda of those racists. Then...well, you know the rest. :)

[Pork Chop]

Again I agree. Although I will say on this one that I've never seen proof of them spitting, throwing stuff, or belittling handicapped people.

thought the video of them throwing dollars at that guy was a bit low class
i'll agree that the spitting video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ3bNhSYG6Q) is debatable
EDIT: i also gotta stick with the viewpoint that some of the signs at Tea Party functions have probably set race relations in this country back a good 20 or 30 years.


I do hope that while you agree racism has reared it's ugly head in both Parties, violence is by no means a conservative only issue. Am I right?

inciting a crowd to violence is not an ability or tactic limited to political party, that being said, i do agree with the viewpoint that anti-government activists (conservative or liberal) have a long, bloody history of using violence in the absence of political influence in order to accomplish their aims & get their message out.

[1bad65]

So, it was okay for the Republicans to have an unrepentant racist in the Senate, but not okay for the Democrats to have a man who repented his racist past? So, is the racism okay if there is an R after a politicians name?

You're just not going to get my point. Well that, or you refuse to acknowledge you got the point because I have a valid point.

Let me try again. First off, I think all racism is wrong and disgusting. That said, I'd rather know I'm dealing with a guy who is open about his racism, than a guy who made bs excuses, then publicly repented purley for political gain.

[1bad65]

i believe the term is "progressives".
in all honesty, i can't sit through mr beck longer than 5 minutes.

But my point remains, Mr Beck does not bash people because of race.

And 5 minutes is about 4 minutes longer than I've listened to the guy. ;)

[1bad65]

nice try dude, but don't try to backpedal.

If someone holds up a sign with a blatantly racist remark on it, then yes, I will call them a racist.

If someone says something that is racist, then I will indicate that it is so.

If someone hangs out with racists, sympathizes with racists and supports the agenda of those racists. Then...well, you know the rest. :)

Do you agree with Pork Chop's post about racism in politics?

[1bad65]

thought the video of them throwing dollars at that guy was a bit low class

It illustrated a good point though. You may not agree with how he spread his message, but he got his point across.

[1bad65]

So, it was okay for the Republicans to have an unrepentant racist in the Senate, but not okay for the Democrats to have a man who repented his racist past? So, is the racism okay if there is an R after a politicians name?

FYI, Exalted Cyclops Byrd used the 'N-word' in 2001 on a national TV broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

[Reality_Check]

You're just not going to get my point. Well that, or you refuse to acknowledge you got the point because I have a valid point.

Let me try again. First off, I think all racism is wrong and disgusting. That said, I'd rather know I'm dealing with a guy who is open about his racism, than a guy who made bs excuses, then publicly repented purley for political gain.

So, you're okay with an openly avowed, and unrepentant, racist, like Strom Thurmond, but completely against Robert Byrd who repented his past sins? Good for you that you find racism wrong and disgusting. Why is it then that you seem to be willing to excuse Strom Thurmond's racism?

[Reality_Check]

FYI, Exalted Cyclops Byrd used the 'N-word' in 2001 on a national TV broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0

I'm not defending Robert Byrd, I'm trying to learn why you refuse to acknowledge the racism underlying a portion of the tea party movement.

For example: Tom Tancredo (at a Tea Party rally)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-cEtUfJhI

"...people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English."

[David Jamieson]

I'm not defending Robert Byrd, I'm trying to learn why you refuse to acknowledge the racism underlying a portion of the tea party movement.

Because nobody likes to admit that their **** smells worse than the one they are complaining about. lol

ps @1bad - Pork Chop has his views and I have mine. Feel free to respond to them both I suppose. It doesn't matter if I agree with anyone else or not. What matters is whether or not you and I are conversing about this and whether or not your really want to talk about it or if you want to build straw men and knock them down over and over again. :p

[1bad65]

So, you're okay with an openly avowed, and unrepentant, racist, like Strom Thurmond, but completely against Robert Byrd who repented his past sins? Good for you that you find racism wrong and disgusting. Why is it then that you seem to be willing to excuse Strom Thurmond's racism?

Read my post again. Nowhere did I say I was ok with anyone's racism. Nowhere did I excuse anyone's racism.

[1bad65]

I'm not defending Robert Byrd, I'm trying to learn why you refuse to acknowledge the racism underlying a portion of the tea party movement.

For example: Tom Tancredo (at a Tea Party rally)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-cEtUfJhI

"...people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English."

Because racism is not an underlying portion of the Tea Party movement. Just because you repeatedly say it is, and liberals repeatedly say it is, does not make it true. I guess Joseph Goebbels was right about something though. He did say, 'A lie told often enough becomes truth'.

And Tancredo is right. People who live here should at least leard the friggin language. If I move to another country where American English is not the native language, I'll darn sure learn the language the people there speak. Nothing racist at all about what he said.

[1bad65]

Because nobody likes to admit that their **** smells worse than the one they are complaining about. lol

ps @1bad - Pork Chop has his views and I have mine. Feel free to respond to them both I suppose. It doesn't matter if I agree with anyone else or not. What matters is whether or not you and I are conversing about this and whether or not your really want to talk about it or if you want to build straw men and knock them down over and over again. :p

BS about straw men. Either you agree that both major parties have racists in them, or you don't. I simply asked what your opinion on his post was.

He has his views, and you have yours. I'm simply asking if on that particular post you agree with him. I admitted I do agree with him on that post. Why are you not wanting to answer that with a simple 'yes' or 'no'?

[1bad65]

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." -Hillary Clinton, when Bush was President

[Pork Chop]

It illustrated a good point though. You may not agree with how he spread his message, but he got his point across.

i don't think he did *that* great of a job.
All i can remember about the clip is that he's a jerk and he seems to be stuck on the "let me have the freedom to choose where my 'charity' money goes, don't force me to donate money to something" argument.

i really don't feel like watching it again to go point by point why i disagree with the guy and why i consider some of his assumptions to be fallacies
so don't expect me to

my response to that argument is in the following points:

1. there are plenty of government programs that already provide money for people with disabilities. this legislation may add to that, but these programs already exist and they probably aren't going anywhere for a while. i am of the opinion that they definitely SHOULDN'T go anywhere anytime soon.

2. most people i know really only donate to charities to get tax exemptions, unless they feel really strongly about the cause. this plan would be taking money in the form of tax increases (which haven't materialized yet) instead of giving something like a tax break. this makes me doubt the "i want to choose where my money goes", more like "i want to be able to get something out of it".

3. welfare is kind of an easy target. welfare is what you do when unemployment insurance runs out. and yeah, in a bad economy, getting a new job in 6 months is wishful thinking. i know soldiers collecting food stamps. everybody hates the concept of it when it isn't them. not everybody on welfare is cheating the system and not everybody out there will run out and quit their jobs to get on welfare either.

4. "socialism" has become the evil buzzword of the day. in the past you haven't criticized the military, but the military is one of the last bastions of socialism in the world. i find these ussa jokes insulting. especially given that the aim is a lot closer to the sdp in germany than anything that the russians did.

[David Jamieson]

BS about straw men. Either you agree that both major parties have racists in them, or you don't. I simply asked what your opinion on his post was.

He has his views, and you have yours. I'm simply asking if on that particular post you agree with him. I admitted I do agree with him on that post. Why are you not wanting to answer that with a simple 'yes' or 'no'?

dude you create strawmen all the time with your hypothetical arrangements.

I think racists exist in both parties of your usa two party system. I think there are more in the GOP because it is set up that way. I think there are less in the dems because that is the way they are structured.

as for Pork Chop, I might agree with him on some points and disagree on others. I don't know why you want to throw that up there other than you want to create a distraction and avoid dealing with the question that he asked you?

I do notice that you selectively answer things and don't answer thos more difficult questions.

but meh. it's just a forum and ultimately, this is all scrubbed. :)

[1bad65]

3. welfare is kind of an easy target. welfare is what you do when unemployment insurance runs out. and yeah, in a bad economy, getting a new job in 6 months is wishful thinking. i know soldiers collecting food stamps. everybody hates the concept of it when it isn't them. not everybody on welfare is cheating the system and not everybody out there will run out and quit their jobs to get on welfare either.

I disagree with this one. While this may describe some welfare recipients, it does not include many of them. Look at the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. You had 3 generations of welfare recipients, and when faced with adversity (and no Gov't checks), those people did not have the tools to function in society.

Back then, I saw a woman on local TV crying. She was in her late 20s. She was crying that she had no money because her welfare checks were not forwarded to Texas yet, her 5 kids were starving and had scabies, and she had no idea what to do. Getting a job never crossed her mind. She only wanted to know who was now supposed to take care of her and her kids. It angered me alot, but honestly, I also felt a little sad for her. The welfare state had robbed her of her ability to take cake of herself. It's really sad when people can fill out pages and pages of Gov't forms to get 'free' money, but can't put together a resume.

[1bad65]

I think racists exist in both parties of your usa two party system. I think there are more in the GOP because it is set up that way. I think there are less in the dems because that is the way they are structured.

Thanks for finally answering that question.


I do notice that you selectively answer things and don't answer thos more difficult questions.

Ask away, I'm not ducking anything. At times there are alot of posts being added very quickly and I can't reply to everything. So feel free to ask any questions you say I'm ducking, and I'll be glad to answer them. One more thing, will you do the same?

[mawali]

And Tancredo is right. People who live here should at least leard the friggin language. If I move to another country where American English is not the native language, I'll darn sure learn the language the people there speak. Nothing racist at all about what he said.

We agree up to a point, on principle, believe it or not but I feel you allow your own representatives to pull wool over your eyes if they belong to your party but do the opposite with the party you have been programmed to "dislike'

We had 16 years of Bushes while saying elected representatives of both parties courted this group hence the bilingual stuff we see today. The bilingual signs/posters etc were not put up by this foreign language group but by those courting favour in echange for votes. No illegal immigrant has the power to do that but elected spokesperson did alot to maintain what you see today.

What happened to McCain in the past 2 weeks compared to his compassionate stance 4 years ago on illegals! ELECTIONEERING! 4 years ago he was close to granting some sort of deal now he is putting on his flak jaket to rein in the illegals! What's up with that stance chage?

[Pork Chop]

The welfare state had robbed her of her ability to take cake of herself. It's really sad when people can fill out pages and pages of Gov't forms to get 'free' money, but can't put together a resume.

I kinda disagree with this.

First, the sad fact is that if she'd been born to a better family (one that had taught personal responsibility & working hard to succeed) & had better educational opportunities, she might've picked up enough education to have some useful job skills.
As it is, a minimum wage job is not going to pay for 5 kids, so she'll be on welfare regardless of whether she's working or not.

Second, I think she robbed herself of her ability to take care of herself, with her choice to have 5 kids. That being said, it's not the kids' fault they were born to someone that can't take care of them self - not really fair that they should have to suffer. All we can hope is that the public education system (as faulty as it is) can take up some of the slack for the lessons that are not being taught at home and that the kids somehow become inspired to do better than their parents.

EDIT: Third, the "have more kids, get more welfare" loophole is something that needs to be addressed. The publicity of the octo-mom is angering people enough to try to enact some change.

[1bad65]

We agree up to a point, on principle, believe it or not but I feel you allow your own representatives to pull wool over your eyes if they belong to your party but do the opposite with the party you have been programmed to "dislike'

I don't blindly vote (R) every election, though I can see why you would think that. The last two Republican Presidentail primaries I voted in I voted for Alan Keyes and Ron Paul. Both were not the guy the GOP was backing. Paul is agruably a Libertarian, and Keyes is no darling of the GOP. But when faced with a Republican vs Democrat general election, I do vote for the Republican, but this is because I've not seen a Democrat on my ballots that was conservative enough for me.


We had 16 years of Bushes while saying elected representatives of both parties courted this group hence the bilingual stuff we see today. The bilingual signs/posters etc were not put up by this foreign language group but by those courting favour in echange for votes. No illegal immigrant has the power to do that but elected spokesperson did alot to maintain what you see today.

Bilingual stuff does not bother me. If a private company wants to spend the money to put more than one language on their packaging/instructions/etc, that's their business. My problem is when people do not speak English and either A) muck up progress because they don't speak English or B) I cannot get my business done because no one there speaks English. I think English should be spoken/written on everything, but if extra languages are present I'm fine with that.


What happened to McCain in the past 2 weeks compared to his compassionate stance 4 years ago on illegals! ELECTIONEERING! 4 years ago he was close to granting some sort of deal now he is putting on his flak jaket to rein in the illegals! What's up with that stance chage?

I've not read enough of this issue to comment on it.

[1bad65]

First, the sad fact is that if she'd been born to a better family (one that had taught personal responsibility & working hard to succeed) & had better educational opportunities, she might've picked up enough education to have some useful job skills.
As it is, a minimum wage job is not going to pay for 5 kids, so she'll be on welfare regardless of whether she's working or not.

True. But do you agree if the Government didn't subsidize people who cannot afford kids the ability to have them, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in now on this issue?


Second, I think she robbed herself of her ability to take care of herself, with her choice to have 5 kids. That being said, it's not the kids' fault they were born to someone that can't take care of them self - not really fair that they should have to suffer. All we can hope is that the public education system (as faulty as it is) can take up some of the slack for the lessons that are not being taught at home and that the kids somehow become inspired to do better than their parents.

Agreed again. But why feel sorry only for the kids? What about the taxpayers who are struggling to keep their heads above water, yet are FORCED to pay for the mess she made of her own free will?


EDIT: Third, the "have more kids, get more welfare" loophole is something that needs to be addressed. The publicity of the octo-mom is angering people enough to try to enact some change.

I've posted this idea on this very forum in other threads. To me, it's common sense. You disagree alot with me, yet you see this problem as well. Hopefully there will be changes made.

[David Jamieson]

I would think that all the anti abortionists out there, combined iwth the same segment who also hate welfare recipients would get together, chip in and support this women (octo mom and her 14 kids) on their own dime.

But when it comes to put up or shut up, those people won't put up and they won't shut up.

so screw em. GO live your bitter and hateful lives without me I say! :p

[MasterKiller]

I would think that all the anti abortionists out there, combined iwth the same segment who also hate welfare recipients would get together, chip in and support this women (octo mom and her 14 kids) on their own dime.

But when it comes to put up or shut up, those people won't put up and they won't shut up. :p

This is precisely my point on adoption. If you are anti-abortion and anti-welfare, you should be adopting at-needs kids. Period. That is the solution if you take the government out of the equation.

[Pork Chop]

Agreed again. But why feel sorry only for the kids? What about the taxpayers who are struggling to keep their heads above water, yet are FORCED to pay for the mess she made of her own free will?


coz to me, as a tax-payer it's the difference of a few (hundred/thousand) dollars.
for the kids it's the difference between having food on the table and a place to live.
i dislike paying taxes, but to me, it's for the greater good.

[1bad65]

I would think that all the anti abortionists out there, combined iwth the same segment who also hate welfare recipients would get together, chip in and support this women (octo mom and her 14 kids) on their own dime.

But when it comes to put up or shut up, those people won't put up and they won't shut up.

so screw em. GO live your bitter and hateful lives without me I say! :p


This is precisely my point on adoption. If you are anti-abortion and anti-welfare, you should be adopting at-needs kids. Period. That is the solution if you take the government out of the equation.

You are aware adoption is not cheap, nor easy? It involves alot of time and money. If people didn't have to work such long hours to give 40% of their money to the Gov't, maybe there would be more adoptions.

Also, what's wrong with me taking care of my business, and others taking care of theirs?

[1bad65]

coz to me, as a tax-payer it's the difference of a few (hundred/thousand) dollars.
for the kids it's the difference between having food on the table and a place to live.
i dislike paying taxes, but to me, it's for the greater good.

How is the greater good to create generations upon generations of people who cannot and/or will not take care of themselves?

[Pork Chop]

How is the greater good to create generations upon generations of people who cannot and/or will not take care of themselves?

i think we can fix the loopholes to prevent people from taking advantage of the system.
i mean what's the other option?
it's not like that lady from Katrina ran out and got a high paying job EDIT: once she stopped receiving welfare checks.
do we let kids starve in the street because their parents don't live the way we want them to?

EDIT: a lack of personal responsibility is not the government's fault.

[Pork Chop]

....If people didn't have to work such long hours to give 40% of their money to the Gov't....

40% seems kind of high...
i pay roughly 1/5 (20%) off of the front federally, maybe 5% of my income for state property tax, and 8% for state sales tax (total less than 33%). on top of that i get a hefty return every year. between the kid, daycare, & the house i get some nice deductions though.

[1bad65]

i think we can fix the loopholes to prevent people from taking advantage of the system.
i mean what's the other option?
it's not like that lady from Katrina ran out and got a high paying job EDIT: once she stopped receiving welfare checks.
do we let kids starve in the street because their parents don't live the way we want them to?

EDIT: a lack of personal responsibility is not the government's fault.

But lets be honest here, what motive do those elected officials who count on the votes of those receiving 'free' checks have to fix the system?

Look at the 'War on Poverty'. It's been a disaster. We have a higher percentage of people receiving welfare now than we did when the 'war' started. Every year we spend more than the previous year on entitlements. The rate of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed. And anyone with experience with educating kids will tell you is that kids with two parents have a much bigger chance of success in life than children raised in single parent households.

I maintain that by subsidising poverty, the Gov't is encouraging more of it.

[1bad65]

40% seems kind of high...
i pay roughly 1/5 (20%) off of the front federally, maybe 5% of my income for state property tax, and 8% for state sales tax (total less than 33%). on top of that i get a hefty return every year. between the kid, daycare, & the house i get some nice deductions though.

Ok, lets say it's 33%. Isn't you having to work for 4 months out of the year for nothing ridiculous?

Also, concerning tax returns: They are giving you back your money because they took too much from you. And the money they give you back is dollar-for-dollar. Had they let you keep that money in the first place, you could have earned interest on it, or paid down any debts you have that are incurring interest.

[1bad65]

EDIT: a lack of personal responsibility is not the government's fault.

Then why do they subsidize it?

And it's definately not my fault, or your fault. Yet we have to pay our hard-earned money to fix someone else's mess.

[Pork Chop]

But lets be honest here, what motive do those elected officials who count on the votes of those receiving 'free' checks have to fix the system?

Look at the 'War on Poverty'. It's been a disaster. We have a higher percentage of people receiving welfare now than we did when the 'war' started. Every year we spend more than the previous year on entitlements. The rate of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed. And anyone with experience with educating kids will tell you is that kids with two parents have a much bigger chance of success in life than children raised in single parent households.

I maintain that by subsidising poverty, the Gov't is encouraging more of it.

I'm curious where you get your numbers:

from wiki:

After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[14] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[17] The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).[16] It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance.[14][16][18] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[18] The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[16]

Millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[18] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[14] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[18] The reforms were "widely applauded"[19] after "bitter protest."[14] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[20]

I've been the exact opposite of a Clinton fan; but those numbers are hard to argue.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Welfare.html
pretty good article
we see through 2003 the only major increases in population being Earned Income Tax Credit and Medicaid.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/art/lfHendersonCEE2_figure_042.jpg

we also see that the only major increases in funding through 03 are in Medicaid
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/art/lfHendersonCEE2_figure_043.jpg

FYI

Regarding work requirements, TANF mandated that at least 50 percent of recipients participate in “work” activities by 2002, with activities including employment, on-the-job training, vocational education, job search, and community service. Together, these activities must account for thirty hours per week for a single parent. Recipients who refuse to participate in work activities must be sanctioned, resulting in a loss of cash benefits. Enforcement of sanctions could include immediately suspending all cash payments, stopping support only after multiple episodes of noncompliance, or only partially reducing grants to families who fail to cooperate. States could, and in fact did, introduce more stringent requirements for families to work or participate in educational activities to qualify for cash payments. TANF cemented the primary emphasis on getting welfare recipients into jobs.

One thing about that link, i disagree with one of the major arguments against welfare; that is, that I disagree on the level that it hurts the economy. Saving hurts the economy worse than giving money to people who don't save a dime. It's related to my disagreement with "trickle-down economics" - business that have a better bottom line after reduced tax burden will not spend that money on employees when they see employees who get the work done as a liability instead of an asset; usually the executives will just get big fat raises. One thing about the rich is that they usually like to get richer, and are more likely to take money out of circulation. It's pretty easily demonstrated that the lowest earning portion of America spends the greatest percentage of their income (esp perishable items).

I don't mind working 1/3 of the year for "nothing", because for me, it's not for nothing. My salary comes from government contracts. I've benefited from government programs and will benefit from government programs in the future, as will my family. To say otherwise would be lying. I have no problem "tithing" for something I consider for the general good, even when I don't directly benefit from it. I'm a lot more comfortable "tithing" for that than I am for the Church I was raised in, the one that's been in the news so often lately for horrible horrible deeds. Which is saying a lot, because opting out of the second one I'm told is a ticket straight to he||.

[David Jamieson]

What percentage of Tea Party members have a fetish for putting vegetables up their ass? I'm sure there's a stat on it somewhere. Also, I bet that more democrat put vegetables up their ass than tea party members. Or at least, more democrats are willing to openly admit it. :D

[1bad65]

Pork, while Clinton did shave off some of the costs, it's still worse than it was when the programs began.

I need to look and see if I can find where the liberals put up the cost estimates for the programs vs what the actual costs ended up being. It's scary! And you just know the healthcare bill will be exactly the same. I can't name one single Gov't program that didn't go over budget.

[MasterKiller]

I need to look and see if I can find where the liberals put up the cost estimates for the programs vs what the actual costs ended up being. It's scary! And you just know the healthcare bill will be exactly the same. I can't name one single Gov't program that didn't go over budget.

Then, compare that to what Conservatives said the cost of invading Iraq would be.

[1bad65]

Then, compare that to what Conservatives said the cost of invading Iraq would be.

But I'll bet we don't stay in Iraq for 50+ years. And I'd bet the casualties don't increase every year for every one of the 50+ years.

And the votes for funding were bipartisan, so you can't blame the Republicans solely for any complaints you have on war spending.

[MasterKiller]

In a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President **** Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates, which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen

A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.

[1bad65]

So he said a 2 year operation would cost $100 billion. And after 7 years its up to ~$700 billion. His numbers don't seem all that far off.

[1bad65]

So, by your numbers we spend about $100 billion per year in Iraq.

Lets look at mine now. ;)

"In 2005, $620 billion was spent on more than eighty welfare programs funded by federal, state, and local governments. But low-income persons receive benefits from other government programs that are not designated as welfare programs. Most notably, they receive benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and the public school system."

So that's ~6.2x we spend on welfare than we do the war. So, if we did away with welfare, we could fight 6 Iraqs and still come out ahead!

Source:
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/09/war-on-poverty-the-high-costs-and-the-depressing-results.html

[Pork Chop]

Okay so the social security system my grandparents paid into for about 5 decades that they now collect from is welfare? Same for medicare?
The public school system that rich and poor alike are free to attend is now welfare?
Silly argument.
Even if you're talking school lunches for underpriveledged kids, it's still a poor argument, because that's feeding kids and providing equality of opportunity.

[1bad65]

Okay so the social security system my grandparents paid into for about 5 decades that they now collect from is welfare? Same for medicare?

Nope. They were forced to pay into the system for decades, so they deserve every penny they get back.


The public school system that rich and poor alike are free to attend is now welfare?

It's actually in a way welfare for the teachers unions. They dont really educate the kids anymore (look at our test scores), yet incompetant teachers are almost impooible to get rid of. Why do you think rich liberals always send their kids to private schools?


Even if you're talking school lunches for underpriveledged kids, it's still a poor argument, because that's feeding kids and providing equality of opportunity.

Can't feed em, don't breed em.

[Pork Chop]

Every time i think of spending the time and effort to track down the source of that figure, i run into a mental block. You see, I'm quite happy our government spends 6 times as much feeding, clothing, housing, & providing health care to the poor, disabled, and elderly as we do killing people.

[1bad65]

Every time i think of spending the time and effort to track down the source of that figure, i run into a mental block. You see, I'm quite happy our government spends 6 times as much feeding, clothing, housing, & providing health care to the poor, disabled, and elderly as we do killing people.

I'm not. Because it's not the Government's (ie the taxpayers) job to do it.

We already give them free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing, free school lunches, etc. And you watch, after they get Obamacare, they will ask for even more. Where does it end?

[Pork Chop]

Where does it end?

oh, heaven forbid we're all well fed, healthy, and living in mansions!!! :eek:

[1bad65]

oh, heaven forbid we're all well fed, healthy, and living in mansions!!! :eek:

You didn't answer the question.

[kfson]

oh, heaven forbid we're all well fed, healthy, and living in mansions!!! :eek:

Everyone should be taxed to the point we are all living as the lowest common denominator.

http://southasia.oneworld.net/ImageCatalog/india-poor.jpg

[1bad65]

Everyone should be taxed to the point we are all living as the lowest common denominator.

Sadly, you are right. The only thing socialism spreads around equally is the misery. Well, except the ruling class, because they exempt themselves from the very laws they pass.

While the average Cuban has milk and food food rationed, Castro has made the Forbes Richest List.

[Pork Chop]

i admit i was being facetious with my post, but holy cr@p you guys are f'ing serious!?!? LOL

we still pay 5% less in federal taxes than other OECD members.
On most standard of living indexes we're top 20 (not even top 10), behind most of our fellow OECD members.
might want to look into the history of tax rates pre-reagan, especially the history of the top marginal tax rate.

does the sand go up your nose when you bury your head in it at night?

[YouKnowWho]

There is nothing wrong to help others. It's evil thought that "as long I have, I can't care less whether you have or not."

[1bad65]

i admit i was being facetious with my post, but holy cr@p you guys are f'ing serious!?!? LOL

we still pay 5% less in federal taxes than other OECD members.
On most standard of living indexes we're top 20 (not even top 10), behind most of our fellow OECD members.
might want to look into the history of tax rates pre-reagan, especially the history of the top marginal tax rate.

does the sand go up your nose when you bury your head in it at night?

How is it burying your head in the sand by saying we are overtaxed?

How is it head in the sand to produce facts and figures?

Look, Reagan cut taxes for ALL brackets. Yes, the rich got bigger cuts, but of course they were paying higher rates already. And even after the tax cuts, the IRS took in MORE income tax money under Reagan than Carter. The only reason this happened is that the economic growth more than offset the fact taxpayers were paying smaller tax rates.

[1bad65]

There is nothing wrong to help others. It's evil thought that "as long I have, I can't care less whether you have or not."

But is it also evil to forcibly take from one man who works and give it to another man who refuses to work?

[Pork Chop]

How is it burying your head in the sand by saying we are overtaxed?

How is it head in the sand to produce facts and figures?


No, I just think your opinion that we're somehow going to become a third world country as soon as we start paying more taxes is silly and alarmist. that is all.

[SnowDog]

With all the talk of being overtaxed.

I'm not sure how it is in other states right now, but in Colo all of my tax increases have been at a state and local level, I'm actually paying less to the Fed this year. (of course I am no where close to the $250k who's breaks got revoked) but my fed taxes for '09 actually went down from my '08 filing.

So if this is the case with other states, doesn't that kind of undermind the TeaParty agenda who are complaining about Fed taxes, but supporting the States having more control, because if State/ local taxes are the ones raising, and Fed is dropping, *****ing about your Fed taxes is kind of a mute point.

[1bad65]

No, I just think your opinion that we're somehow going to become a third world country as soon as we start paying more taxes is silly and alarmist. that is all.

I never said that.

Now I have stated on numerous times that Gov't spending will not end a recession. And so far, I've been proven correct. I've also stated that massive tax cuts will fix most of our current economic issues. If this policy is implemented, we will see if I'm right, yet again. ;)

[David Jamieson]

I never said that.

Now I have stated on numerous times that Gov't spending will not end a recession. And so far, I've been proven correct. I've also stated that massive tax cuts will fix most of our current economic issues. If this policy is implemented, we will see if I'm right, yet again. ;)

No you haven't, if anything you've been proven wrong because government spending did keep the recession from going into a depression and also you never felt the real pinch of the consequences of what really happened because of that spending.

don't forget they were essentially using your tax money to help the money system stay afloat. at the same time, you felt a minor loss because of it if you and any investments you probably lost about 1/3 of them like everyone else and that money is written off.

now you are going through economic recovery in teh states and soon to follow will be all the jobs that were lost and in effect, government loosening of the purse strings and stimulus spending will have more or less aided in the correction and the majority of the people will not have felt the pinch of the disaster that would have happened if no stimulus spending took place and no bail outs occurred.

[1bad65]

No you haven't, if anything you've been proven wrong because government spending did keep the recession from going into a depression and also you never felt the real pinch of the consequences of what really happened because of that spending.

Here you go with that purple dragon argument again. :rolleyes:

Face it, after the 'stimulus' bill got passed that we were told would fix the problems and keep unemplyment below 8%, unemployment hit 10% and is still over 9%. And the regime has openly admitted unemployment will be between 9-10% for at least another year.

[1bad65]

now you are going through economic recovery in teh states and soon to follow will be all the jobs that were lost and in effect, government loosening of the purse strings and stimulus spending will have more or less aided in the correction and the majority of the people will not have felt the pinch of the disaster that would have happened if no stimulus spending took place and no bail outs occurred.

LMAO at an economic recovery in the states! Isn't unemployment close to 20% in Michigan now? Is California recovering?

[Pork Chop]

Disclaimer: this may come off "touchy feely".


Everyone should be taxed to the point we are all living as the lowest common denominator.

http://southasia.oneworld.net/ImageCatalog/india-poor.jpg


Sadly, you are right.

this is where i got that idea that you said that (about increased taxes sending us all back to 3rd world status)....

btw- i think our only real disagreements are thus:

1. I don't think increased taxation is going to kill us (financially).
I understand your viewpoint, I've just seen enough evidence to the contrary that I'm willing to try other options. We'll see how this health insurance thing goes and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

2.I have no problem paying for people who refuse to work.
Yeah, it's not fair.
But money that might be going to these "derelicts" might be going to other people who have a perfectly legitimate reason for their situation.

3. I don't think "liberals" are evil.
Just like you, I hate people who legislate what I am and am not able to do.
I feel the same way about the Christian right that encourages a mindset similar to the theory behind chick-fil-a not being open on Sundays, evolution not being taught in school, and alcohol not being sold at certain times/places - the same that you do about legislation that states unhealthy fast food restaurants are not allowed to market toys to kids if it requires purchasing unhealthy foods, being forced to pay for derelicts, gun control, and other stuff that's been (admittedly) forced through lately.

I think the opposing view point is valid; even if I don't agree with it, because it encourages me to think about things I would otherwise think should just be "common sense".

I try to understand the motivations that encourage your opinions on matters.
I would hope you try to understand my motivations that encourage my opinion on matters.

The last thing any of us needs are more reasons to hate the "other side". Liberals who want to see people in trouble relieved of some sorrows, are not that fundamentally different than conservatives that don't want to be burdened to pay for it. Ultimately, if we can find some common ground, I think we could discover a resolution that encouraged a "win win" situation.

No legislation should be inherently evil if both sides are allowed to debate on issues; granted when bush was in office this did not happen enough, and the same can be said for legislation that's going through now. That being said, I've been on both sides of the abortion issue and "abstainment" seems to be the route that makes the most moral sense.

The great thing about our system is that poor legislation can be reversed.
If the people in office are not willing to do it, then we can elect others in office to get it done - there is some democracy in the process.

(Selfishly) I would hope you would not think of us try different approaches as being "evil' just as I'll try to keep an open mind about the recent legislation in Arizona, among other things that occurred during Bush's reign. The Arizona thing by the way, I don't have that big a problem in theory - I'm just tired of seeing friends with jobs and needed job skills get deported due to an immigration system that seems broken at the most fundamental levels.

Admittedly, I have very little love for corporations (too many greeburgs and kozlowskis, not enough mulcahys and kellys); which is why i lean the direction I do. I would rather fight a government program, because at least some office with enough clout could be elected to enact change; whereas some businesses have boards with decade upon decade of control.

My brother worked for a lawyer investigating social security fraud, which is why I understand (somewhat) your viewpoint- at least as far as "welfare".

I would just hope to "agree to disagree" and not harbor serious bad blood towards either side. Because different viewpoints can be extremely beneficial in understanding an issue.

My problem with the Tea Party is that the propaganda for the movement thus far has seem entirely too closed-minded, one-sided, black & white, and "us vs them".
If you can admit that some racist elements have targeted the movement, then I can admit that they've got some good points about getting back to basics and fiscal responsibility.