....lybob Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) The real original Tea party an act of protest against The British East Indian Company Fighting evil multinational corporations an American foundation. Edited April 1, 2011 by ....lybob
Adam Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Lets try to remember that politics, like life, isn't a zero sum game. All parties have a great mission statement and want to provide people with what they need, build a strong economy, etc.... Sometimes they get blinded by their own agenda and lose sight of what the agenda is trying to accomplish. Actually, it's more than sometimes.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Great mission statement emphasizing the shiny, bright, new, beautiful ideals of the Tea Party movement. Now that some of their first elected officials are not living up to their campaign promises, the necessary addendum to the mission statement is (as Chef so eloquently stated): "(If) you don't follow your mission statement we will fire you". Again, it's all shiny and new, so I withhold judgement until this proves itself one way or another. The problem I have with the Tea Party is the dark underside which many of you like to deny exists. Despite it's seeming focus on the country's financial problems, there seems to be a deep-seeded faith-based element to it. While many of you won't have any problem with this, I hardly see this as an example of getting back to what the Founding Fathers were all about. In a lot of ways I see the Tea Party as a more fiscally responsible wing of the holier-than-thou Republican party, but I do have my biases as far as that stuff goes. I also feel that there is an element of racism in the movement - another thing that many people will deny until they're blue in the face. I think the Tea Party's demographics speak for themselves as far as that stuff goes. It's almost not even worth arguing because it's really just a subjective judgement. All in all, once the shine wears off, I expect the Tea Party to regress toward the mean and blend back into a (possibly) slightly more fiscally conservative Republican Party. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Oh this is just great. You can't leave the religious people alone, can you Gene? Who the F is talking religion at this point in the thread? Yet, who decides to bring it up? Man, you have to get over this, you are being exactly as intolerant as you claim the people you are clearly bigoted against of being. That's right, I'm calling you out as a bigot, because you are. I am also calling you a hypocrite, as you have demonstrated that clearly in this post. While we are on the topic of "feeling" things and not backing them up with a single shred of evidence, let's apply Frenklespeak to Frenkle: [Frenklespeak] I feel that Gene Frenkle likes to put his thing into little boys - he may deny it until he's blue in the face, but, it's my "feeling", and my affected brain tells me I am allowed to cast ridiculous aspersions on total strangers. So therefore, you can't argue with me, because not only have I not constructed an argument, I haven't bothered to present any facts to support it. It's just my "feeling". [/Frenklespeak] So, Gene, please stop having sex with boys, because we all know that your demographics means you like to put your thing in them.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Threadkiller Extraordinaire strikes again... You're a clown.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Threadkiller Extraordinaire strikes again... You're a clown. Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron who doesn't even realize he's contradicting himself in his own posts, and, thinks it's ok to cast aspersions on legions of strangers...because he has a "feeling".
....lybob Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron. But lucky you, you don't have to chose you're both.
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2011 Author Posted April 1, 2011 Rather be a clown than an unmitigated moron who doesn't even realize he's contradicting himself in his own posts, and, thinks it's ok to cast aspersions on legions of strangers...because he has a "feeling". When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets.
Magox Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 The threads have evolved into the "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you" status...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 The threads have evolved into the "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you" status... It's the Jews Zionist's fault.
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2011 Author Posted April 1, 2011 It's the Jews Zionist's fault. You're just PARROTING your reach-around buddy!
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 You're just PARROTING your reach-around buddy! You're an idiot. No particular reason, I just haven't pointed it out in a while, and don't want you to forget.
Buftex Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Wow...is that what you did? Man, you got us...good one! If you had started this on April 1st, no way I would have fallen for it!! Edited April 1, 2011 by Buftex
Buftex Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 You're an idiot. No particular reason, I just haven't pointed it out in a while, and don't want you to forget. Really? No particular reason?
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Really? No particular reason? Nope, not today. Just a general observation. Day's not over yet, of course.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 since it's very doubtful the big brand republican RINO's will ever fully "get it" or that is assuming they want to and are not happily complacent as democrat lite. I am waiting for when the Tea party decides its time to become their own 3rd party and stick to their guiding principles. I honestly feel it is the only chance this country has to correct our bloated government establishment.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. 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."
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 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.
Rob's House Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe [through supplication and appeasement of every foreign nation, particularly those that don't particularly care for us] and expanding opportunity for every American [by limiting the incentive to produce and transferring resources from those who create opportunity to the non-productive]. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic government growth, affordable government health care for all Americans, [government] retirement security, open, honest and accountable government[ ] , and securing our nation [by ignoring our borders] while protecting our civil rights and liberties[unless you're white]." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history [of doing what the democrats suggest with a little bit of conservative garnish sprinkled] with basic [marketing] principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions[unless a poll says otherwise]; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home [and carried out abroad]." Fixed 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. Libs (not necessarily your average rank and file Democrats) typically support high progressive taxes, and government supply of virtually all "necessities", which they define much more broadly than would I. In essence, they want the government to provide a virtually unconditional middle class existence to everyone at the expense of those who choose to produce. They won't say it outright, but when you break down their arguments, that's what you're left with.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Democratic Party "The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe [through supplication and appeasement of every foreign nation, particularly those that don't particularly care for us] and expanding opportunity for every American [by limiting the incentive to produce and transferring resources from those who create opportunity to the non-productive]. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic government growth, affordable government health care for all Americans, [government] retirement security, open, honest and accountable government[ ] , and securing our nation [by ignoring our borders] while protecting our civil rights and liberties[unless you're white]." Republican Party "Republicans have a long and rich history [of doing what the democrats suggest with a little bit of conservative garnish sprinkled] with basic [marketing] principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions[unless a poll says otherwise]; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home [and carried out abroad]." Fixed Libs (not necessarily your average rank and file Democrats) typically support high progressive taxes, and government supply of virtually all "necessities", which they define much more broadly than would I. In essence, they want the government to provide a virtually unconditional middle class existence to everyone at the expense of those who choose to produce. They won't say it outright, but when you break down their arguments, that's what you're left with. 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.
Adam Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 When I started this thread I knew that some of the left wing nut jobs would not be able to resist posting in it. I asked for comments on the mission statement, knowing full well that certain posters would try to get the thread off topic. They could have no real argument against the mission statement so they would throw up canards in order to disparage the Tea Party movement. They are collectively filling in very well for Connor, but in so doing have become my sock puppets. Then try a thread on Bush. There are some pretty bad things (just like any politician). But in reading his book, I find it amazing how he revamped national security. Also, it is ridiculous that people say he isn't conservative, just because he spent a lot- each successive president spends more than the last. Its all a political game, which hopefully will come to a stop soon.
Recommended Posts