interesting results from tea party convention vote...

Electric_Delta

It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.

they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.

they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.

Gotta start somewhere.

Jason P

TriumphantAngel wrote:

point taken.

i wish the tea party supporters were more outspoken and as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

thanks for listening.

love,

TriumphantAngel.

Thank you for sharing your points of view.

I do think that people who have identified with the original tea party agenda will have to deal with the massive amounts of defense spending sooner or later . . . or admit to being hypocritical.

The 80-90% figure was just me shooting from the hip. But the budget keeps getting approved each year and I have not seen a national debate on why 20% of the GDP is going to the military. The only thing that stopped the initial budget vote this year was the "don't ask, don't tell" issue. Otherwise, it would have passed in a blink of the eye. If it was a bigger issue to the voters, I would think that more of our elected officials would raise hell over it.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.

how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.

that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...

NAACP - one of those letters represents a term that I would never dare use. Same with UNCF.

With the term tea baggers, it took a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's a while to catch up on a negative term used by teenagers. OMG. Now I could ROFL about the term but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they had no idea of the negative connotation.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.

how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.

that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...

NAACP - one of those letters represents a term that I would never dare use. Same with UNCF.

With the term tea baggers, it took a bunch of people in their 50's and 60's a while to catch up on a negative term used by teenagers. OMG. Now I could ROLF about the term but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they had no idea of the negative connotation.

i see what you are getting at, but that does not change the fact that they DID accept it at first while those other terms were always offensive.

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

It doesn't matter what the Tea Party calls themselves. Fact is, they are a legitimate political movement and they will have representation in Congress after the midterms.

they might have a seat or two, but i don't see how a handful of tea party representatives is going to sway moderates and democrats to their side on ANY legislation.

There are already many that have beat lifetime entrenched politicians from both political parties. That right there is a huge accomplishment regardless of what the general election brings. At least the general election brings new blood.

ONCE DEVIDED

its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting

Electric_Delta

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting

We need shooting, huh? Classy.

Thanks for proving all my points.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting

We need shooting, huh? Classy.

Thanks for proving all my points.

what is the difference between what ONCE DIVIDED said and what unsung said about deporting all liberals? it is basically punishing those with a differeing ideology, and its not cool on either side. this country is big enough for all ideologies. it is just so divided right now that each side feels that they can do without the other..

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

its called economic rationalism.
its destroying society.
Infastructure is required to maintain the society, to feed its growth. Enabling the society to grow.
more roads/rail etc enables more fluid movements of goods, employees etc
no infastructure stops that, stops people from having wages to spend . thus no taxes and services used.
those who would have serviced those employees alos then have no wage etc etc etc
meanwhlie those wo do have wages sit in gridlock.
rightwingers need shooting

We need shooting, huh? Classy.

Thanks for proving all my points.

what is the difference between what ONCE DIVIDED said and what unsung said about deporting all liberals? it is basically punishing those with a differeing ideology, and its not cool on either side. this country is big enough for all ideologies. it is just so divided right now that each side feels that they can do without the other..

Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.

there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:

i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.

there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:

i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

ELF

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.

there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:

i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

Good point about liberals not being violent. I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree with you.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Not cool, huh? He suggested those with a right-wing ideology be SHOT. No, that isn't cool to say the least.
Gimme, I disagree with you on things, but I would never wish that on you or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked over it.

there are many right wingers on here that have said that and worse to me and my progressive, liberal friends. i am not offended by it because it is just hyperbole. i don't support what once devided said because i don't wish anybody to be shot, nor do most liberals and progressives, as we are against capital punishment, and pretty much any violence in all situations. so we have that in common :idea:

i hate violence on all sides, and any other sort of punishment based on ideology..

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

Good point about liberals not being violent. I'm sure Bill Ayers would agree with you.

bill ayers was 40 years ago. the current progressives disagree with what bill ayers did. how about eric rudolph? how about the guy that killed george tiller? we can do that all day and make it a pissing match if you like, but i would rather try to work through our differences instead of point fingers and try to call the other side worse than your own...people do violent acts all the time and i condemn them all the same....

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

You have the same on the flip side. Hippies sticking nails in trees and burning down developments and sabotaging equipment as well as groups trying to sink whaling ships by ramming million dollar boats into them.

When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

but then again, when is the last time a lefty in this country killed an abortion provider or blew up a building or threatened to kill the president? so the hyperbole is present on both sides, but normally acted on by those on the right...

You have the same on the flip side. Hippies sticking nails in trees and burning down developments and sabotaging equipment as well as groups trying to sink whaling ships by ramming million dollar boats into them.

When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.

and as i said earlier i do not agree with their tactics either....

Commy

Jason P wrote:

When an ideology becomes more important then a human life, it's time to step back and reevaluate things.

people have been killing and dying for ideologies and ethos since people were killing and dying.