or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Tea Parties
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tea Parties - Page 3

post #81 of 207
Thread Starter 
More pics here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187554.html

So many of these people seem very insecure with themselves...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #82 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Newt's point was also valid for all of Bush's term.

The problem isn't deficits. The protesters don't like that there is a Democrat in the White House who has been tasked with fixing the bullshit for the person these same protesters voted into office. Yes, he is doing just that. Yes, he is doing it in a restrained but decidedly liberal manner... If there was a Republican in the White House the deficit would have grown just as much because that is what a virtual unanimous consensus of Economists said was needed. It would have been different, tax cuts primarily, but the deficit, this tickle that these protesters are hypothetically complaining about would have been just as large, and just as real to pay off in the future. But there would not have been an AstroTurf campaign because the guy in the white house would have been their guy...

Hypocrites. And bullshit all around.

People want to fix our problems? They should get their heads out of their asses and stop complaining about what other people are doing to them... If they stopped doing half the stupid shit they do to themselves our economic scenario wouldn't be nearly as dire...

I'm going to disagree if for no other reason then the proof is in the pudding because Republicans lost. When you have a majority and lose it, those people have gone somewhere and given up for some reason. These are part of those people. It isn't new this is the same group that Ross Perot pulled away from Republicans when Clinton took the White House elected with 43% of the vote. This is the paleocon wing of the Republican party. I know because it is the wing to which I belong and I have several posts here over the years, posts from when Republicans were in power noting how easy it is to chip this group off from the party.

Democrats were elected in 2006 with claims of PAYGO and earmark reform. Obama ran on very conservative language with regard to finances. The banter all around these forums was about "Borrow and Spend" Republicans who would not address a continual deficit of $250-300 billion a year.

However Obama has come in and in the very first year, blown out the spending projections. Instead of bringing us savings from ending the war in Iraq, he is by his own optimistic projections taking the current Bush doubled debt, and raising it another 250%. CBO which is using real numbers declares Obama will raise it 300%.

Sadly here is what too many Americans will be looking at to get their understanding of our deficit problem.



John, you're laughing at the great-grandkids debt again. Stop it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #83 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm going to disagree if for no other reason then the proof is in the pudding because Republicans lost. When you have a majority and lose it, those people have gone somewhere and given up for some reason. These are part of those people. It isn't new this is the same group that Ross Perot pulled away from Republicans when Clinton took the White House elected with 43% of the vote. This is the paleocon wing of the Republican party. I know because it is the wing to which I belong and I have several posts here over the years, posts from when Republicans were in power noting how easy it is to chip this group off from the party.

Democrats were elected in 2006 with claims of PAYGO and earmark reform. Obama ran on very conservative language with regard to finances. The banter all around these forums was about "Borrow and Spend" Republicans who would not address a continual deficit of $250-300 billion a year.

However Obama has come in and in the very first year, blown out the spending projections. Instead of bringing us savings from ending the war in Iraq, he is by his own optimistic projections taking the current Bush doubled debt, and raising it another 250%. CBO which is using real numbers declares Obama will raise it 300%.

Sadly here is what too many Americans will be looking at to get their understanding of our deficit problem.



John, you're laughing at the great-grandkids debt again. Stop it.

And why did he have to do that? Because of the mess the Republicans left after they lost!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #84 of 207
Thread Starter 
Jon is having a field-day with the Fox News Channel's Tea Parties which they promoted heavily (but claim not to have sponsored).

Fox is owned by... an Australian businessman who used his fortune to set up a mind-control mechanism in the US to tell the sheep what to think; right now, he's very worried that his taxes are going up so he makes everybody who's paying less worry for him.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #85 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And why did he have to do that? Because of the mess the Republicans left after they lost!

Yeah, keep up the circumstantial logical fallacies.

Reasoning like this says you can go rape your neighbor to clean up the mess of her husband only slapping her.

Makes sense to some I guess.

See folks, the way you clean up someone adding five trillion of debt in 8 years is to add twenty trillion more in the next ten.

We'll never tell you why it costs 400% more to clean up the mess just remember, someone lost.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #86 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yeah, keep up the circumstantial logical fallacies.

Reasoning like this says you can go rape your neighbor to clean up the mess of her husband only slapping her.

Makes sense to some I guess.

See folks, the way you clean up someone adding five trillion of debt in 8 years is to add twenty trillion more in the next ten.

We'll never tell you why it costs 400% more to clean up the mess just remember, someone lost.

This is just sophistry at it's best.

Quote:
We'll never tell you why it costs 400% more to clean up the mess just remember, someone lost

Part of the reason is Bush's gang were such bad fuck ups!

I repeat again where were you when we were saying Bush was leading us into a hole?

And yes we did! That's already been previously covered elsewhere.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #87 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

More pics here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187554.html

So many of these people seem very insecure with themselves...

Interesting link. The headline reads: "10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs". Well, let's see what's in there:

Offensive?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0072_large.jpg

Okay, sure. I'll give you that. Maybe. And the first slideshow definitely contains offensive signs. And there are also offensive signs sprinkled throughout the slideshows.

But what about the rest? Are they offensive too?

What about these? Offensive? Maybe for someone that's "very insecure with themselves".

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0079_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0095_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0054_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0029_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0087_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0117_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0097_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0096_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0098_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0041_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0057_large.jpg

What the left is trying to do here is a simple fallacy of composition. Let's go pick out the "10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs" and pretend that everyone that is participating thinks that Obama is a baby-killing Hitler.

Frankly, sounds like people that are "very insecure with themselves".

post #88 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This is just sophistry at it's best.

Address, don't dismiss.

Quote:
Part of the reason is Bush's gang were such bad fuck ups!

Wow, costing 400% more to clean up a mess is explained by the very deep reasoning of they were "such bad fuck ups!"

Could you post a picture of the glib face made afterward because if we are going to use John Stewart reasoning, I at least want to see the funny faces.

Quote:
I repeat again where were you when we were saying Bush was leading us into a hole?

And yes we did! That's already been previously covered elsewhere.

The answer again is I condemned Bush spending. I wish the search function wasn't so damaged on this board. Perhaps you or someone else will admit to remembering this. I actually started a thread where I declared Bush very LIBERAL because of his spending. I was condemned as deluded because "we all know" Bush is the most conservative guy evar!1!!! I

Still given that is still a circumstantial ad-hom deficit spending is still wrong no matter if someone didn't protest at $300 billion, $400 billion or $500 billion. Wrong is wrong. Being wrong in the past doesn't excuse present wrongs.

Seriously Jimmac, stop engaging in fallacies and get some different reasoning. The reasoning amounts to, you weren't perfect and thus can no longer pass judgment or participate in political discussion. You aren't perfect either and don't exclude yourself so stop trying to exclude others. Address the issues and stop harping your version of history with all its accusations and insinuations.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Address, don't dismiss.



Wow, costing 400% more to clean up a mess is explained by the very deep reasoning of they were "such bad fuck ups!"

Could you post a picture of the glib face made afterward because if we are going to use John Stewart reasoning, I at least want to see the funny faces.



The answer again is I condemned Bush spending. I wish the search function wasn't so damaged on this board. Perhaps you or someone else will admit to remembering this. I actually started a thread where I declared Bush very LIBERAL because of his spending. I was condemned as deluded because "we all know" Bush is the most conservative guy evar!1!!! I

Still given that is still a circumstantial ad-hom deficit spending is still wrong no matter if someone didn't protest at $300 billion, $400 billion or $500 billion. Wrong is wrong. Being wrong in the past doesn't excuse present wrongs.

Seriously Jimmac, stop engaging in fallacies and get some different reasoning. The reasoning amounts to, you weren't perfect and thus can no longer pass judgment or participate in political discussion. You aren't perfect either and don't exclude yourself so stop trying to exclude others. Address the issues and stop harping your version of history with all its accusations and insinuations.

Quote:
Still given that is still a circumstantial ad-hom

That's a bit of a stretch. If that's true then you've already said I have a weak mind because you put that label on the left in previous threads. That would be a
Quote:
circumstantial ad-hom

in your interpretation.

Quote:
Being wrong in the past doesn't excuse present wrongs.

Yes but that's just your take on things and yet to proven. If anything it seems like the stimulus is seeing some movement early on.

Quote:
Seriously Jimmac, stop engaging in fallacies and get some different reasoning

I could say the same to you. This " Weak minds " thing for example. Compared to what or whom?

Quote:
you weren't perfect and thus can no longer pass judgment or participate in political discussion

Says judge trumptman?

Quote:
You aren't perfect either and don't exclude yourself so stop trying to exclude others

This would apply to you as well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 207
These conservatives skipped the tea parties:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWm1Mjd71M
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #91 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The answer again is I condemned Bush spending.

I don't think that's entirely true, unless you were making the Frankenstien of contradictions.

I suppose it is possible you could have been saying "Bush is spending too much" at the same time you were saying, "We aren't spending enough" and you don't realize you're contradicting yourself there.

Where were you saying, "We aren't spending enough," you ask?

I seem to recall you, again and again, criticizing, chastising, ridiculing Democrats for refusing to pay for costs associated with the Iraq war. True or not true?

Again, I seem to recall you championing the tax rebates and tax cuts for the rich, and even pushing for more. True, or not true?

What on Earth do you think Bush spent so much money on? Two things. Tax cuts. Iraq. Do the logic.
post #92 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't think that's entirely true, unless you were making the Frankenstien of contradictions.

Nope. The real issue is entitlements. Entitlement growth already has the the U.S. bankrupt by any standards a corporation would need to use. In the future the growth entitlements is expected to exceed world GDP when boomers are retired.

We are spending about 4-5% of GDP on defense which is near historic lows. If you want to comb through the PDF you will see (starting about 50 pages in) the tables for the last 50 years or so.

The growth has been in entitlements and standing against that is not a contradiction then nor now. It was correct to condemn Bush for his prescription drug benefit and it is correct to do so for the spending that is increasing under Obama.

Quote:
Where were you saying, "We aren't spending enough," you ask?

I seem to recall you, again and again, criticizing, chastising, ridiculing Democrats for refusing to pay for costs associated with the Iraq war. True or not true?

If you go to war, you provide what is needed. In most other instances where we have gone to war, we spend literally double to triple MINIMUM what we are spending now. Military spending at 10+% of GDP was not at all uncommon during the cold war.

We have cut our military to the bone and keep letting entitlements grow. Some earlier post on here noted military spending was increasing 4% this year. Think about how that will barely stay ahead of inflation WHILE FIGHTING TWO WARS and meanwhile all the other areas of government were noted to be growing at rates much higher than 4% and also higher than the rate of inflation.

Quote:
Again, I seem to recall you championing the tax rebates and tax cuts for the rich, and even pushing for more. True, or not true?

What on Earth do you think Bush spent so much money on? Two things. Tax cuts. Iraq. Do the logic.

I am capable of the logic. The tables show that regardless of rates, we have a spending problem. This has been true regardless of Obama or Bush or rates for half a century. As I noted in another thread, we are in a pretty pathetic state. We basically get to choose between Obama who will create ten trillion more in debt or Republicans who will create seven trillion more while getting press coverage about how ketchup is a vegetable and how they are pushing old people off cliffs or into ovens.

Both results suck and the only argument is to the degree of suckiness.

Republicans chastizing Clinton for a massive $40 Billion dollar bailout of Mexico. Those days are long gone.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 207
Twice now I've noticed a certain poster using a Reagan belief. WTF.

Press coverage? Throwing people off cliffs?

Someone's starting to go off the rails again, hallelujah, disappearing posts.
post #94 of 207
Thread Starter 
Our actual defense spending has increased but, as we are spending only so much of our GNP we have a problem. How is quality of defense related to percentage of GNP spent?

The world spends one trillion on defense. The US spends 600 billion. That means the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world, combined. And yet we hear how big and powerful so many militaries are and how scary they is and blah blah blah. (Are they doing more, for less?)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

As I said somewhere else about the Navy, the US needs to reconsider its military structure and acquisitions so that they better relate to the needs of the present. Too much of our gear and thinking is designed solely for a war with the Evil Empire™ and some has not actually been deployed in the two wars we are currently in.

More for less... that's an interesting concept. Does the US have a ship that is completely stealthy? No? Not yet? Two countries deployed theirs several years ago. The total population of those small countries doesn't equal the population of New York City.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #95 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nope. The real issue is entitlements. Entitlement growth already has the the U.S. bankrupt by any standards a corporation would need to use. In the future the growth entitlements is expected to exceed world GDP when boomers are retired.

We are spending about 4-5% of GDP on defense which is near historic lows. If you want to comb through the PDF you will see (starting about 50 pages in) the tables for the last 50 years or so.

The growth has been in entitlements and standing against that is not a contradiction then nor now. It was correct to condemn Bush for his prescription drug benefit and it is correct to do so for the spending that is increasing under Obama.



If you go to war, you provide what is needed. In most other instances where we have gone to war, we spend literally double to triple MINIMUM what we are spending now. Military spending at 10+% of GDP was not at all uncommon during the cold war.

We have cut our military to the bone and keep letting entitlements grow. Some earlier post on here noted military spending was increasing 4% this year. Think about how that will barely stay ahead of inflation WHILE FIGHTING TWO WARS and meanwhile all the other areas of government were noted to be growing at rates much higher than 4% and also higher than the rate of inflation.



I am capable of the logic. The tables show that regardless of rates, we have a spending problem. This has been true regardless of Obama or Bush or rates for half a century. As I noted in another thread, we are in a pretty pathetic state. We basically get to choose between Obama who will create ten trillion more in debt or Republicans who will create seven trillion more while getting press coverage about how ketchup is a vegetable and how they are pushing old people off cliffs or into ovens.

Both results suck and the only argument is to the degree of suckiness.

Republicans chastizing Clinton for a massive $40 Billion dollar bailout of Mexico. Those days are long gone.

I notice you didn't respond with regard to your contradiction. You admit you were supporting the two largest areas of Bush spending. How can you claim to have criticized Bush spending without realizing the contradiction?
post #96 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I notice you didn't respond with regard to your contradiction. You admit you were supporting the two largest areas of Bush spending. How can you claim to have criticized Bush spending without realizing the contradiction?

It ISN'T a contradiction. The reasoning amounts to stating that supporting a principle somehow disqualifies you from participating or having views in the process.

It is entirely possible for the government to spend 4% of GDP on defense, cut taxes AND keep the rest of their spending within the revenue generated.

False dilemma man. It isn't an OR question. It is absolutely possible to do all three. I showed you how our defense spending was not at anything resembling a high or even average level compared to historic standards. I showed how the problem has been separate from tax rates. Now I've noted (perhaps more clearly for you) what I thought was clear in the first post. It is possible to do all three and meet the principle. I even stated an example of an area of entitlement creation (and named entitlements as the primary culprit) as the areas that should be criticized and that I did criticize.

So this is done, unless you just want to pose the false dilemma repeatedly.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 207
I really don't understand why this forum hasn't been renamed "trumptmanOutsider" yet....
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #98 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I notice you didn't respond with regard to your contradiction. You admit you were supporting the two largest areas of Bush spending. How can you claim to have criticized Bush spending without realizing the contradiction?

It's like the Heisenberg principle. You never know exactly where any of these guys stand at any one given time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #99 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I really don't understand why this forum hasn't been renamed "trumptmanOutsider" yet....

It's a copyright issue. They won't give me enough cash to use the name.

HuffPro

Quote:
"Several Republican members of Congress spoke at Tea Party protests around the country on Wednesday," CNN reported. "Some were applauded. Others heckled. But only one, it appears, was booed relentlessly for the entire duration of his speech: Rep. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina."

Barrett faced the ire of the tea party protesters because his vote last year for the $700 billion, Bush administration-backed financial bailout. Now, the Republican congressman is prepping for a South Carolina gubernatorial run in what is expected to be a competitive GOP primary.

Buh..buh.buh...impossible Republican, Fox News, corporate shilling, love fest.

How could this possibly happen?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's a copyright issue. They won't give me enough cash to use the name.

HuffPro



Buh..buh.buh...impossible Republican, Fox News, corporate shilling, love fest.

How could this possibly happen?


Besides in a recent thread I came up with the idea first!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #101 of 207


We should listen to Jimmac.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #102 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



We should listen to Jimmac.

Nah! Nah! We should listen to trumptman!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It ISN'T a contradiction. The reasoning amounts to stating that supporting a principle somehow disqualifies you from participating or having views in the process.

It is entirely possible for the government to spend 4% of GDP on defense, cut taxes AND keep the rest of their spending within the revenue generated.

False dilemma man. It isn't an OR question. It is absolutely possible to do all three. I showed you how our defense spending was not at anything resembling a high or even average level compared to historic standards. I showed how the problem has been separate from tax rates. Now I've noted (perhaps more clearly for you) what I thought was clear in the first post. It is possible to do all three and meet the principle. I even stated an example of an area of entitlement creation (and named entitlements as the primary culprit) as the areas that should be criticized and that I did criticize.

So this is done, unless you just want to pose the false dilemma repeatedly.

OK so I understand now. You were expecting Bush to cut billions and billions in social support programs to pay for billions and billions in Iraq, and for billions and billions in tax cuts. I'd like to see how that works out for you, living in an urban area, except that I wouldn't want to see how that works out for others. And what about infrastructure? I guess we'll just have to expect a few more bridges to collapse. Collateral damage, I guess.

Please tell me where Bush could have cut enough spending to pay for his massive "Conservapork".

I'll tell you where Bush could have cut spending. The war. The tax cuts. That was obvious.
post #104 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I really don't understand why this forum hasn't been renamed "trumptmanOutsider" yet....

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

OK so I understand now. You were expecting Bush to cut billions and billions in social support programs to pay for billions and billions in Iraq, and for billions and billions in tax cuts. I'd like to see how that works out for you, living in an urban area, except that I wouldn't want to see how that works out for others. And what about infrastructure? I guess we'll just have to expect a few more bridges to collapse. Collateral damage, I guess.

Please tell me where Bush could have cut enough spending to pay for his massive "Conservapork".

I'll tell you where Bush could have cut spending. The war. The tax cuts. That was obvious.

Yes I was. Additionally I've condemned Bush and Republicans for taking people off the tax rolls. If we are all in this together with regard to infrastructure, defense, etc. then we should all pay some sort of nominal taxes with regard to income or perhaps sales tax. Medicare/caid, and Social Security for example were 28% of all federal spending in 1980 and are approximately 43% now. Things like the EITC should not exist. The retirement age for Social Security should be raised to at least 70 if not higher. When S.S. was enacted, the reason the age of qualification was 65 related to the fact that it was also the life expectancy at the time.

I've also said that I agree with what you say on the war matter, but take it much farther. We must end Pax American and basically have our military stop acting as the cop for the world. If we being the cop though, we do have to give our troops the proper tools to do their job. I noted before the last election that neither candidate would end Pax Americana and it is clear Obama hasn't as well nor will we see much savings from the supposed ending of our war on terror.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Good for you. More people should donate to charity. But most people don't. I think history has proven that human kind doesn't really give a shit about human kind.

That's what's known as "freedom of choice". If you would care to donate a huge chunk of your earnings to others, have at it. It's usually the people who want to force others to give who won't follow their own demands.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #106 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

That's what's known as "freedom of choice". If you would care to donate a huge chunk of your earnings to others, have at it. It's usually the people who want to force others to give who won't follow their own demands.

I was going to respond in a negative way, but decided I'd wait for a comment more deserving.
post #107 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Additionally I've condemned Bush and Republicans for taking people off the tax rolls.

And yet you voted for them over and over and shill for them repeatedly.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #108 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Jon is having a field-day with the Fox News Channel's Tea Parties which they promoted heavily (but claim not to have sponsored).

Fox is owned by... an Australian businessman who used his fortune to set up a mind-control mechanism in the US to tell the sheep what to think; right now, he's very worried that his taxes are going up so he makes everybody who's paying less worry for him.

Not true. The Tea Parties were grassroots. Fox and a bunch of Republicans came late to the party and got their asses chewed. Nobody likes a phony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QsY2r7HbTM

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Not true. The Tea Parties were grassroots. Fox and a bunch of Republicans came late to the party and got their asses chewed. Nobody likes a phony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QsY2r7HbTM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...arty-epic-fail
Quote:
"Y'know, since two thirds of my retirement plan evaporated, I owe more on my house than it's worth, and I'm worried about losing my job, taxes and gay marriage just don't fit on my radar screen no more," he admitted to me yesterday when I asked him about it.

"And you know," he continued, with a conspiratorial wink, "when I first saw them on TV on Fox News? Saw all the costumes and signs on the screen and I thought it was one of them pride parades in San Francisco, at first."

post #110 of 207
Sorry. Please delete this post.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #111 of 207
The fact that so many Obama supporters are trying to marginalize or discredit these Tea Parties indicates that they were indeed successful.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #112 of 207
Quote:

Coulda, didn't.
post #113 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Sorry. Please delete this post.

To late, no harm.
post #114 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And yet you voted for them over and over and shill for them repeatedly.

You're right and the choices are between suck hard and suck really, really hard.

I mean look at what the latest choices were for the last election. We could vote for the guy who supported the policies that created a $250 billion dollar a year deficit that had crept up to $400 billion and then voted for bailouts that ran it over a trillion, or we could vote for the guy who voted for the bailouts that created the trillion and who then added another trillion on top of that.

What wonderful choices to have!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The fact that so many Obama supporters are trying to marginalize or discredit these Tea Parties indicates that they were indeed successful.

My post was from a conservative, but like most wingers, spin spin spin.
post #116 of 207
Where oh where is has your Reagan gone,
where oh where could she be,

oh, Palin.
post #117 of 207
So you agree. If the Tea Parties really were irrelevant and insignificant, they wouldn't even be worth mention, would they?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 207
If Fox News hadn't promoted them so wholeheartedly...
post #119 of 207
But if CNN had promoted them, it would have been okay?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #120 of 207
No wonder you guys are fucked.
You just don't get it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Tea Parties