"Crash the Party"

I note, with considerable amusement, that this was apparently too difficult a request.

 

Noble but totally useless endeavor...

 

To the OP (grunching): 100% an infiltrated movement. They wouldn't be giving it media hype unless it had been. Just another distraction, I just wish people would stop joining parties, think for themselves and do what they know is right, not what is popular.

 

You people who claim racism and bigotry do realize that this is the last gasp of a fool in your feable attempt to argue your position? You cannot argue on any of the meirts so you pull out the race card.....FAIL!

Having been to several tea party rallies I can assure you that these people are just everyday Americans concerned with the over reaching, over spending and general dereliction of duty of the elected congress and senate.

 

Nobody cares.

 

Funny because I was thinking the same thing about your worthless opinion...

Have any of you loons even been to a tea party or are you just basing your so calle opinions from the lame stream media reports?

 

yer so cute with your little Palin phrases

 

Calling out racism isn't playing the race card. If you are going to accuse others of pulling the race card you should at least learn what the race card is and that calling out racism is not it.

Any other positions are being overshadowed by the racism and the tea party's lack of effort to address the issue.

You don't argue with David Duke about a flat tax or progressive tax in LA until after he addresses his racism.

 

You are such a simpleton......nobody is stopping anybody from attending a tea party rally...

Heck come on down, join in....
How does the liberal mind take a lack of effort by minorities to come out in protest and spin that as racism? One has to wonder who the real racist is...

 

We don't have to wonder at all. Just look to the Republican party

The Crazy Caucus

Right-Wing GOPers You Don't Know...But Should

Birthers, militias, Tea Partiers -- it's hard to keep track of all the fringe groups that have popped up across the nation. But what to do when the extreme ideas of some of these groups bleed into the politics of public officeholders?

We've rounded up some of the right-wing House GOP members who may not have the national presence (or charisma) of a Michele Bachmann or a Steve King, but who certainly share their penchant for appealing to the outer limits of the political stratosphere...

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has been very vocally opposed to trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. He seems to believe it could lead U.S. troops to become more like cops, taking "forensic wagons" into battle, and using "latex gloves" to "take DNA and fingerprints."

Gohmert also rambled about the "wide open" definition of sexual orientation on the House floor: "There are all kinds of perversions, what most of us would call perversions, some would say it sounds like fun, but most of us would say were perversions and there have been laws against them."

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) got some attention for yelling out "baby killer" while Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) was speaking on the House floor right before health care reform passed. Neugeubauer defended his outburst, saying he was calling the bill a baby killer, and not Stupak.

Speaking of babies, he is among those who co-sponsored the infamous "Birther Bill," that would require presidential candidates to present their birth certificates to prove their eligibility for office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said the health care reform bill will allow Democrats to "finally lay the cornerstone of their Socialist utopia on the backs of the American people."

He also downplayed reports that anti-health care protesters called out racial epithets at Congressional Black Caucus members: "When you use totalitarian tactics, people begin to act crazy."

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has said that President Obama "has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government," a national police force, gun control and control of the press. Continuing on this theme, he's also said Obama's nationalized the country more than Hugo Chavez has nationalized Venezuela, and called Nancy Pelosi a "domestic enem[y] of the Constitution."

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) has run into trouble with her Muslim constituents, waging a campaign against supposedly terrorist-linked Muslim interns' supposed infiltration of Capitol Hill national security committees. This idea arose from a book called Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America -- for which Myrick wrote the foreword.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) once suggested that African-Americans are worse off now (because of legalized abortion) than they were during the time of slavery. "Far more black children," he said. "Far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery."

Franks also argued that President Obama's pro-choice stance shows he's an "enemy of humanity," though Franks later clarified that he actually meant unborn humanity.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) introduced a bill that would bump Ulysses S. Grant from the $50 bill in favor of Ronald Reagan. He said of his bill: "Every generation needs its own heroes. One decade into the 21st century, it's time to honor the last great president of the 20th and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy."

McHenry also maintained that hasn't "seen enough evidence one way or the other" as to whether President Obama is a citizen, though he later backed away from his birther-curious statement.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), who also co-sponsored the "Birther Bill," brushed aside Obama's birth announcement in a local newspaper as irrelevant, saying it's "like me sending out a birth announcement for one of my children."

Poe also compared the White House party crashers to illegal immigrants, mocking the negative attention drawn by these "undocumented guests." "Maybe they were just trying to feed their family," he suggested sarcastically.

 

Exactly which is why profiling is primarily done on behavior, as it should be and not on a factor like race or religion.

I am not saying that every Muslim male has been visited by the FBI but you are the one drawing up the comparision in regard to profiling of Muslims versus profiling of people parading around in public with guns. You are missing the point that there is a big difference between profiling on behavior verus profiling on religion. No one is calling for a profile fo white male Christians but there is plenty of calls for profiling based on Arab male Muslims. Whether you are fine with that is not at issue the issue is the difference between behavior versus ethnic, gender and religious background.

The ACLU means American Civl Liberties Union so by definition they wouldn't deal with what happens in another country, although international organizations such as Amnesty International have criticized countries like Saudi Arabia quite a bit. Personally I don't agree with how Saudi Arabia treats its people but I don't hold the US in the same regard as Saudi Arabia and as a US citizen I have no say in how Saudi Arabia conducts things but I do in the US.

I don't believe a Saudi Arabia is in the same ballpark as the US in regards to rights a comparison of saying we are doing better than Saudi Arabia is such a low bar as to be meaningless for our context.

What does that mean though specifically in this context? Are you saying that until Saudi Arabia shapes up that its fine for us to engage in things like ethnic and relgious profiling?

Frankly I doubt any Christian would justify behavior on their part by pointing to the actions of others but that is what you are saying here.

Anyway I find this line of argument from you troubling as you have spent most of your time railing against increased government power yet hear you seem fine with increasing it.

FYI its the same government that passed the HCR bill that is also running homeland security.

 

No, to use your reference, you will be Johnny Ringo while I play the role of Doc Holliday.

Let's see, Social Security has been running for almost 80 years now and has taken an entire section of our society, the elderly, and lifted them out of the abject poverty in which they found themselves even before the Great Depression.

Let me go ahead and preempt your scripted response of "SS is going to be bankrupt in 20XX with a reminder that we have had these fears before and Congress went in and fixed SS so that it would remain solvent. They will do this again and again repeatedly for the entirety of the time that Social Security is in effect in this country. That is the nature of laws and legislation, times change and the legislation has to change with it.

See the above statement. Times change, the beauty of the Constitution is that it was constructed to be a living document that could change with the times as well.

I agree that Congress is out of touch with most Americans, this is the reason I joined the Coffee Party. However, claiming that they are "focusing on everything but the economy" is a lie. I am not calling you a liar, I am calling the Faux "News" hosts you are parroting liars.

Stimulus? Financial regulation overhaul? Do you just ignore facts and believe everything served up to you on Faux?

I honestly don't care about C&T and neither does the Democratic leadership given the fact that this issue seems to have dropped off the radar for everyone except Faux "News" talking heads. Personally, I think that climate change is the wrong reason to put such a policy in place, but freeing us from reliance on foreign sources of energy sounds like a great reason to do everything in our power to reduce usage of fossil fuels.

Completely agreed. This is the biggest reason we cannot allow the Congress or Presidency to fall back into Republican hands in the short term. We can't possibly handle another round of tax cuts for the very wealthy and that seems to be the only thing Republicans think will balance the budget.

More Faux fear mongering.

You can't give me any because it is directly related to the fact that they have an initiative process that allows voters to enact legislation while the state legislature has to have a 2/3 majority to enact a tax increase. This leads directly to voter initiated unfunded mandates that Democrats can't pay for because Republicans obstruct the tax increases.

Any evidence of this or should we just take your word for it?

You are so wrong on this it isn't even funny. They pay sales taxes every time they buy something, they pay property taxes every time they pay their rent, and they even pay social security taxes that they will never see a benefit for as a result of using forged social security cards.

Republican myth. You should really read more varied sources, you get a much better picture of the truth.

As well as good outcomes from their laws...

"Although the overall California state trend is similar, California families have escaped some of the trauma. California now has the strongest gun laws in the nation. Despite the small increase in the state's gun homicide rate since 2000, between 1993 to 2005 the overall rate of gun homicides in our state declined by 49% - 10% more than in the rest of the nation. Total gun deaths (including gun suicide and unintentional gun deaths) in California declined by 46%, which was 16% more than in the rest of the nation."

Linky

Maybe it was a typo, but it wasn't multiple representatives, it was one, and it wasn't "all industries," it was the oil industry. So, it was one out of 47 representatives who "openly advocate[d]" while the rest giggled because it was such a laughable suggestion.

...because there is a law requiring 2/3 supermajority for tax legislation.

Well, except for the fact that they pay some of the highest prices for their gas in part because they want to keep their state as pristine as possible. It is their choice and they are living with it, they are also paying for the privilege, which by definition is not a parasite.

Yes, you could keep on posting lies, distortions, and myths all day long. All it takes is a willingness to be dishonest.

Another lie about to be debunked! 47% of the people don't pay federal income taxes, but still pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and that isn't to mention the fees that are really taxes for services.

I think we were doing pretty well on the economics front after WWII. We were building new infrastructure, improving schools, and we didn't have to run massive deficits even though the Cold War was in full swing. People were able to get rich and live lavish lifestyles even though their tax rates were FAR higher than they are today.

If the GOP wants us to revert back to the 1950s, maybe it is time to give them what they are asking for with regards to tax policy.

I prefer "Isn't that a daisy."

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/adDFM8h13do&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/adDFM8h13do&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

You, evidently, don't watch "Criminal Minds..." :grin:

 

Objection: Where were you the previous eight years? I find your sudden concern suspicious given this context, and it leads me to postulate that your intent is far from admirable. It is extremely hard to take seriously someone who ridicules what he celebrated or ignored just moments earlier. This basic point clouds just about everything you have to say and, accordingly, should be taken into consideration when anyone attempts to formulate the rationale for your arguments.

Your spelling is atrocious. Medicare pays out 98-99% of its revenue to claims. The private equivalents are lucky to hit 90%. Medicare’s administrative costs average ~3% compared to the private sector’s ~14%.

Similarly, I’d argue that social security is quite efficient as well. Even reports in favor of privatization of this system admit that administration is (and would remain) cheaper with the government.

Regardless of quibbling about numbers, the question is really not pertinent since “efficiency” as it relates to government entities is really not as important as “effectiveness”. The confusion of the two terms can be innocent, but in the mode you and your brethren operate in the subtle shift is intentional. More to the point, many of the programs instituted by government are specifically not profitable (in a general sense) and are undertaken out of obligation to the welfare of the citizenry.

As a generalism, the accusation above is always one of the more brazenly unsubstantiated yet commonly accepted standpoints of right wing dogma.

Maybe, if it is reasonable that the government option would provide more equitable services at reduced cost. (See: health care. A pity Obama and the democrats neglected their obligations to the voters and acquiesced to Republican foolishness.)

Maybe. The term “intent” is subjective, particularly when used in reference to a 200+ year old document designed to be malleable.

While I myself have not been too happy with the lack of regulation on wall street, the economy was priority number one – the stimulus package was passed long before the health care debate began. And the economy is doing quite well given the circumstances.

Furthermore, health care was a major issue, and has been a campaign focus for decades.

That all being said, I don’t particularly appreciate any of the ilk in congress at the moment.

This might be one of the few issues we agree on (sort of), although it bears mentioning that the term is “cap and trade”, and that the GOP supported it not too long ago. So much so that TPM has taken the time to use cap and trade as a case study in GOP extremism post Obama.

As it is, I would favor straight regulation, not trade.

See Objection above. This sudden “demand” for budget reform is so lame it almost hurts my sides thinking about it.

California’s situation has been discussed in several threads here before and is unique. Blathering on about progressive agendas “spilling” into the nation from California places you with the gun nut morons aforementioned in this thread: ranting and raving about farcical injustices and paranoid delusions of what might occur. This is terribly obvious is your case since Obama has shown himself to be objectively not progressive, favoring pragmatic solutions and moderation even when unnecessary. Frankly, I’d argue his platform decidedly centrist.

I intend to ignore the rest of California rant as it is not relevant and comically inaccurate.

In conclusion, I find that your arguments are not viable or rational, except perhaps in regards to cap and trade, but only inasmuch as I’d prefer more stringent (and simplistic) reform while you would prefer the not-sustainable status quo.

Uh…. income taxes.

So now you want more taxes? I thought the Tea Party make-everyone-laugh Contract required a 2/3 majority to raise taxes (lol - you know, just like the one that has ****ed over california)? I also note how you follow your complaint of too few tax-returns with complaints about higher taxes below – well done.

See Objection above. Perhaps you should start by cleaning house in your own party – seeing as the vast majority of our federal debt is due to GOP administration excesses. If you want to b**** about fiscal conservatism’s lack of voice in government I’m all for it, but you’re choosing an odd time to “suddenly” complain about it after letting it slide since 1980.

/end

 

That isn't the charge of racism. It comes from the racist signs, and posters at some of the rallies. It comes from a racist speech that opened the official tea party convention. It comes from tea baggers yelling the N word at a civil rights hero who worked closely with MLK. It comes from the fact that the tea parties have endorsed several racist candidates. It comes from the fact that even though all of these incidents come from individuals and not the tea parties themselves, the tea parties do nothing at all to try and speak out against the racism.

Yes some have commented about the lack of diversity at the tea party rallies, but that isn't where the charges of racism are coming from.

 

Oh I dunno... how about just admitting you're brazenly hypocritical, laughably nonsensical, and dangerously misinformed?