Gene Frenkle

Well that's a scientific argument if I ever saw one!

Amusing anecdotes from 20-30 years ago. It's like talking about how unsafe nuclear energy is because I can think of three accidents in the past 50 years.

Or IS it?

I'm not sure what her point is exactly. Somebody please enlighten me. AIDS in the 80's? Ok. Irradiated apples? Fair enough I guess - but that's pretty random. What's she trying to prove - conservatives are carrying the flag for science? If so, that's a !@#$ing joke! Incidentally, that picture of Ms. Coulter looks like it was probably taken in the 80's, so the AIDS thing fits right in I guess.

What's not a problem is that it's also full of Hungarian strippers.

We could better balance our budget by not deploying real militaries. Link? I love Canada - seriously. It's just like the fact that I can't help teasing my little brother sometimes.

Please expand on that - I'm not sure what I'm looking at exactly.

So provide incentives to manufacturing here and selling here as opposed to providing disincentives to manufacturing elsewhere and selling here. Seems like either could provide the same result, but that's picking nits (maybe). So what incentives would you propose that would actually make a difference? If the goal is to avoid mandating disincentives...

It becomes easier to balance the budget when you don't need to field a real military.

I'm aware that I don't know as much about this stuff as you, but it seems to me that really cheap labor is a pretty good incentive.

I was completely wrong about religion. As it turns out, it is !@#$ing awesome! Yeah god!

Seems to me they're relocating for cheap labor, so yes - I would propose laws that would make it more difficult for a private enterprise to move its manufacturing outside of the US.

Is asking 'where have all the jobs gone' a stupid question? Surely I'll hear: 'the unions have driven up the cost of doing business in the US'. Are the companies moving their manufacturing outside of the US not partly to blame? Are the laws that allow them to easily do so not equally responsible? Where are the private sector jobs? Ducking for cover now...

Exactly my point about "mission statements", though with a little more one-sided fervor of course... Trying to be fair and balanced: Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home." Neo-Cons (not necessarily your average rank and file Republicans) typically only support small government and equal rights for all straight, pro-life, gun-totin' white Christian males.

In short, I don't think that people, libs included, are against what the Tea Party says it stands for. I just think people smell a whole lot of BS whenever a political party tells them what it stands for. Ideally, a political party shouldn't HAVE to tell you what it stands for - it actions should tell you all you need to know.

Dan posted a link which illustrates why any party mission statement is nothing more than a glorified marketing campaign. I don't think it got the attention it deserved, so I'll post the mission statement of the Democrats, Republicans to show how meaningless it really is. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in each: Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home." Now, with that hypocrisy fresh in your mind, simply extrapolate: Tea Party "The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets."

I'm currently responding to the first post of yours I've read in weeks.

Ya, BMI sucks as an indicator. Body fat percentage works best IMO.

Does responding to the thread one killed days earlier make one less of a thread killer? I think not...

Threadkiller Extraordinaire strikes again... You're a clown.

Easier said than done, but true nonetheless.

From a founder of the movement, that's pretty damned incriminating... But some people think it's important to say that they find Michelle Obama unattractive and that's what REALLY counts. So very telling.

Good idea.

All I'm really saying is that you can't look at the mission statement in a vacuum. Are you saying there are a lot of secular Tea Party members? Lots of pro-choice, socially liberal Tea Party members? My opinion is that they're stance on social issues is almost as unified as their stance on fiscal issues. Just because it's not in the mission statement doesn't mean that it's not implied by the common social agenda of its membership.

I'm referring to my online persona in the third person. Does that count?