Republican Party Raids the Tea Party

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

So basically you're saying that because a majority wants something and you feel it's not really a big deal, why not just let the mob be or do as they please? Do you feel the same about things like making English the national language - because at some point in the near future, Spanish speakers will actually outnumber English.. so should we make Spanish the national language because the majority want it?

aerial wrote:

Here is a question for those that preach tolerance...
Is it really necessary to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from in front of a court house that’s been there for years . . . spending millions in court to satisfy one or two people . . . what about a cross that has been in place over 20 years because ONE person is offended....what happened to tolerance in these cases? And the list goes on

are you counting the illegals

gimmesometruth27

breath123 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

I think # 6 is: Only hold meetings when Dems get political control.

indeed, perhaps the sour grapes party would have been more appropriate.

or the REDCOATS, since this time the "patriots" are in defense of the multi national corporation...

then, England. Now, The Healthcare industry.

well done, traitors.

i'm not so sure i would call them the sour grapes party. more like the silent enablers, they say absolutely nothing for 8 years then when their guy loses they become politically "aware"...

FiveB247x

Why do you ignore the fact that "where he is now" is not a real reason. Would it be ok if atheists decided to put up a text or tenet of their beliefs and then turn to you and say "just leave it alone and let it be..stop trying to change our culture"? You're notion is no different from saying we should keep maps of a flat world in history books... fact is, time, ideas, people change. God and how people view religion is not excluded, regardless of what many may want to think or believe on the subject.

Also, in terms of my comment, if there are legal americans in which more people speak or can speak Spanish, than English, should we change it because it is was the majority/mob wants?

aerial wrote:

I repeat myself why spent hundreds of thousands in court cost alone... to remove monuments that have been in place for years, were is the tolerance...these things should be thrown out of court as frivolous......I never said we need to turn into a Christian Nation I am saying this country was founded on Christian beliefs ....I think it’s unnecessary to strip of its history or culture....I am not even advocating that everyone should be Christian or believe in God.....Just stop trying to remove God from were he is now.

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

Why do you ignore the fact that "where he is now" is not a real reason. Would be it be ok if atheists decided to put up a text or tenet of their beliefs and then turn to you and say "just leave it alone and let it be..stop trying to change our culture"? You're notion is no different from saying we should keep maps of a flat world in history books... fact is, time, ideas, people change. God and how people view religion is not excluded, regardless of what many may want to think or believe on the subject.

Also, in terms of my comment, if there are legal americans in which more people speak or can speak Spanish, than English, should we change it because it is was the majority/mob wants?

aerial wrote:

I repeat myself why spent hundreds of thousands in court cost alone... to remove monuments that have been in place for years, were is the tolerance...these things should be thrown out of court as frivolous......I never said we need to turn into a Christian Nation I am saying this country was founded on Christian beliefs ....I think it’s unnecessary to strip of its history or culture....I am not even advocating that everyone should be Christian or believe in God.....Just stop trying to remove God from were he is now.

your analogy is so off base.... the world is not flat..... your saying atheist are going to put up something this day....I’m talking about things that have been posted , erected for years....and all of a sudden one person does not like it ....WTF. I’m talking culture and history....not the fact that there are some people that hate for example Christmas..... so now it’s wrong to say Merry Christmas...Damn, how many years have we been saying that.......and it’s not the masses that don’t want Christmas...It’s a few hypocrites that want to take away American culture, the history and are in tolerant of others....as they preach tolerance....
If these things were hurting someone I would agree but how the hell is saying Merry Christmas hurting anyone....how is the Ten Commandments on a monument hurting anyone?

FiveB247x

And what does this mean exactly?

aerial wrote:

Your talking

FiveB247x

And another thing... at what point does this sort of nonsense and logic simply boil down to everyone simply advertising their beliefs, thoughts and leanings in every aspect of life. Whether it's about god and the commandments on a court house or some other message. Does everything and everyone have to publicly display such things? You answer seems to be no, cause it's culture and history, yet you sit on a perch and say others shouldn't cause "your message" is ok"?

aerial wrote:

I repeat myself why spent hundreds of thousands in court cost alone... to remove monuments that have been in place for years, were is the tolerance...these things should be thrown out of court as frivolous......I never said we need to turn into a Christian Nation I am saying this country was founded on Christian beliefs ....I think it’s unnecessary to strip of its history or culture....I am not even advocating that everyone should be Christian or believe in God.....Just stop trying to remove God from were he is now.

aerial

FiveB247x wrote:

And another thing... at what point does this sort of nonsense and logic simply boil down to everyone simply advertising their beliefs, thoughts and leanings in every aspect of life. Whether it's about god and the commandments on a court house or some other message. Does everything and everyone have to publicly display such things? You answer seems to be no, cause it's culture and history, yet you sit on a perch and say others shouldn't cause "your message" is ok"?

aerial wrote:

I repeat myself why spent hundreds of thousands in court cost alone... to remove monuments that have been in place for years, were is the tolerance...these things should be thrown out of court as frivolous......I never said we need to turn into a Christian Nation I am saying this country was founded on Christian beliefs ....I think it’s unnecessary to strip of its history or culture....I am not even advocating that everyone should be Christian or believe in God.....Just stop trying to remove God from were he is now.

I am talking about Monuments not billboards

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i'm not so sure i would call them the sour grapes party. more like the silent enablers, they say absolutely nothing for 8 years then when their guy loses they become politically "aware"...

You should stop while you are ahead, well you aren't really even that. Most tea party people are Constitutionalists and Libertarians that are very anti-neocon. At least I am, I voted for Gore and Kerry simply to prevent George Bush from ever setting foot in the White House. It is also the reason I did not vote for either Obama or McCain.

But I guess it is very easy to make generalizations and assumptions.

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i'm not so sure i would call them the sour grapes party. more like the silent enablers, they say absolutely nothing for 8 years then when their guy loses they become politically "aware"...

You should stop while you are ahead, well you aren't really even that. Most tea party people are Constitutionalists and Libertarians that are very anti-neocon. At least I am, I voted for Gore and Kerry simply to prevent George Bush from ever setting foot in the White House. It is also the reason I did not vote for either Obama or McCain.

But I guess it is very easy to make generalizations and assumptions.

where were these people when bush was running up the deficits?? it is a very simple question...where were they??
these are probably the same people that were fine with giving away their rights in support of the patriot act and were fine with "supporting our troops" with hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military and military contractors in the wars in iraq and afghanistan...

and you can not tell me that the people holding up those signs saying "dont take from medicare to pay for government run health care" are constitutionalists and libertarians....most constitutionalists and libertarians seem to be farily intelligent. these people at these rallys appear to be pretty damn stupid...

OnTheEdge

aerial wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Will you please answer my question?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people and the media begin to call these followers "tea-baggers" as an acronym for the Tea Bag Movement and not the sexual connotation some use it as?

aerial wrote:

So are you guys the derogatory name calling police....,,,how do you pick and choose what name is ok to call people?

I don't really know who started it..and it does not matter....I heard it on here first and come to think about it I have not heard anyone else use the word at all.......all I know people on the MT use it as derogatory name calling to insult others. I’m sure they are not using it as a term of endearment .

This is the only place I have ever heard it also.

OnTheEdge

aerial wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Well if someone could confirm my belief or correct my incorrect comment, I would appreciate it.

To me this is no different from a follower of Reagan being called a Reaganite... or some other nondescript acronym to represent the group/view point of the follower.

And if people somehow use term in a sexually defined manner - that's nothing more than childish and should be taken as a joke. I don't see how or why you would be so offended by this comment. Silly name calling is hardly a rational form of debate.

aerial wrote:

I don't really know who started it..and it does not matter....I heard it on here first and come to think about it I have not heard anyone else use the word at all.......all I know people on the MT use it as derogatory name calling to insult others. I’m sure they are not using it as a term of endearment .

it would be childish if it were a child saying it...but I think we are all adults here and I expect we all know right from wrong......
Definition of tea-baggers
a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging
I don’t think that is close to the same meaning as a Reaganite

Holy Shit!! I am a Tea Bagger!

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

where were these people when bush was running up the deficits?? it is a very simple question...where were they??
these are probably the same people that were fine with giving away their rights in support of the patriot act and were fine with "supporting our troops" with hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military and military contractors in the wars in iraq and afghanistan...

and you can not tell me that the people holding up those signs saying "dont take from medicare to pay for government run health care" are constitutionalists and libertarians....most constitutionalists and libertarians seem to be farily intelligent. these people at these rallys appear to be pretty damn stupid...

There are stupid people in all walks of life. The people holding up these signs mean as much to the tea party as Rev Wright does for liberals. Unfortunately these types of people make the news, and as we know media sucks in this country, they only look for a story that make people emotional.

Smart people can read through the BS and not label any "movement" with a few idiots.

OnTheEdge

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i'm not so sure i would call them the sour grapes party. more like the silent enablers, they say absolutely nothing for 8 years then when their guy loses they become politically "aware"...

You should stop while you are ahead, well you aren't really even that. Most tea party people are Constitutionalists and Libertarians that are very anti-neocon. At least I am, I voted for Gore and Kerry simply to prevent George Bush from ever setting foot in the White House. It is also the reason I did not vote for either Obama or McCain.

But I guess it is very easy to make generalizations and assumptions.

where were these people when bush was running up the deficits?? it is a very simple question...where were they??
these are probably the same people that were fine with giving away their rights in support of the patriot act and were fine with "supporting our troops" with hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military and military contractors in the wars in iraq and afghanistan...

and you can not tell me that the people holding up those signs saying "dont take from medicare to pay for government run health care" are constitutionalists and libertarians....most constitutionalists and libertarians seem to be farily intelligent. these people at these rallys appear to be pretty damn stupid...

Where were they? They were probably all at work.

brandon10

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

where were these people when bush was running up the deficits?? it is a very simple question...where were they??
these are probably the same people that were fine with giving away their rights in support of the patriot act and were fine with "supporting our troops" with hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military and military contractors in the wars in iraq and afghanistan...

and you can not tell me that the people holding up those signs saying "dont take from medicare to pay for government run health care" are constitutionalists and libertarians....most constitutionalists and libertarians seem to be farily intelligent. these people at these rallys appear to be pretty damn stupid...

There are stupid people in all walks of life. The people holding up these signs mean as much to the tea party as Rev Wright does for liberals. Unfortunately these types of people make the news, and as we know media sucks in this country, they only look for a story that make people emotional.

Smart people can read through the BS and not label any "movement" with a few idiots.

It's not just "a few idiots". These rallys are packed with morons preaching hate. It was a good time to start a political movement toward fiscal responsibilty and spending awareness. Sadly that movement got hijacked by right-wing wingnuts mad that a nigger(socialist, marxist, communist, facist) is president.

And I think "teabagger" a become negative much the way the word "retard" has become negative. They have brought it upon themselves.

FiveB247x

Whether you want to call it "monument" or similar, you seem to find it ok to draw a line in the sand and say your particular "culture" or beliefs (and I use that lightly) are ok to display, but others can't build or display such things.

You question why do some not want to hear about Christmas or see a tree? My answer, why do people who do not believe in such things have to see them? Is it not enough for people to leave them in their homes and not decorate the entire public world with them? Just like religion, keep it to yourself. Not everything in life has to be on display to show your appreciation or celebration for, because you are not everyone - you represent you and perhaps some others like you - but not everyone. You say it is harmless and perhaps it is, but in some ways, all these symbols do is escalate people's differences and create resentment or even push the other half to do the same.. ie put up their own things in public for display. So come December, we don't just see a small Christmas tree in public, we see them everywhere, then Jews start putting Menorahs all over, and perhaps others who celebrate Kwanza put that some symbols of that up, and maybe atheists put something up.. at what point does all this nonsense just boil down to everyone having to show off their beliefs in some fashion in public places? This is what I mean about billboards - this is what we are turning our society into.. a lawn with hundreds of monuments, symbols and billboards all showing off what we like, believe and think. At what point do we just look around and say - this is ridiculous - what is wrong with us? There's nothing wrong with being proud of what you think, believe or like, but to what extent do we take these things without recognizing something is a miss? You seem to ignore this distinction and use "history" or "culture" as reasons. I think everyone should keep their stuff to themselves and just let everyone tolerate, appreciate or even learn from one another... but people don't want to do that... they prefer to be the proud buffoon... as George Carlin once said... leave the symbols to the simple-minded.

aerial wrote:

your analogy is so off base.... the world is not flat..... your saying atheist are going to put up something this day....I’m talking about things that have been posted , erected for years....and all of a sudden one person does not like it ....WTF. I’m talking culture and history....not the fact that there are some people that hate for example Christmas..... so now it’s wrong to say Merry Christmas...Damn, how many years have we been saying that.......and it’s not the masses that don’t want Christmas...It’s a few hypocrites that want to take away American culture, the history and are in tolerant of others....as they preach tolerance....
If these things were hurting someone I would agree but how the hell is saying Merry Christmas hurting anyone....how is the Ten Commandments on a monument hurting anyone?

g under p

aerial wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Well if someone could confirm my belief or correct my incorrect comment, I would appreciate it.

To me this is no different from a follower of Reagan being called a Reaganite... or some other nondescript acronym to represent the group/view point of the follower.

And if people somehow use term in a sexually defined manner - that's nothing more than childish and should be taken as a joke. I don't see how or why you would be so offended by this comment. Silly name calling is hardly a rational form of debate.

aerial wrote:

I don't really know who started it..and it does not matter....I heard it on here first and come to think about it I have not heard anyone else use the word at all.......all I know people on the MT use it as derogatory name calling to insult others. I’m sure they are not using it as a term of endearment .

it would be childish if it were a child saying it...but I think we are all adults here and I expect we all know right from wrong......
Definition of tea-baggers
a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging
I don’t think that is close to the same meaning as a Reaganite

This can be of a bit sexist definition, couldn't this be between two men also?

Peace

FiveB247x

I'm sure that also works.

g under p wrote:

This can be of a bit sexist definition, couldn't this be between two men also?

Peace

KDH12

there are now some pretty stupid arguments in this thread

but that is okay carry on becuase it takes away from the legitimacy of the tea party movement

FiveB247x

What legitimacy exactly? And let me preface this by saying I am not a democrat. Obama gets elected a bunch of former Repubs get together cause their sick of practically all the things their own party has done in the past 20 something years? This is the legitimacy?

KDH12 wrote:

there are now some pretty stupid arguments in this thread

but that is okay carry on becuase it takes away from the legitimacy of the tea party movement

KDH12

nope because you make the argument about the constitution and church vs state and all these other things


not the real issues we are dealing with as country


tea party stance gets lost in the muck