jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (214 posts)

Proof The Tea Party Isn't Extremists

0
Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_ … y_concerns

Now they are renting venues and hiring security to keep out fringe elements that damage their brand. They are becoming more organized, because saving our country is THE issue.
reply report
1. 77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  why would fringe elements be attracted to their brand?
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  birds of a feather...
  reply report
2. 60
  William R. Wilsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The KKK has also been trying to remake their image and get back into the mainstream lately.
  
  They are also convinced that they are saving the country.
  
  Your argument is invalid.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Oh really? Why because YOU say so? I could say the same about the ACLU.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know what the KKK is doing? Are you a subscriber to their newsletter?
  
  Go mow your yard!
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  good comeback.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Is the KKK still run by democrats??
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ya gotta ask Robert Byrd.
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  More likely by the Tea Baggers and southern red state Republicans.
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  and don't forget gun lovers (nuts)
  reply report
3. 60
  Friendlywordposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Poppa
  Glad to hear the Tea Party organizers want to clean up their act.
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
Lol. 'saving our country is THE issue' Saving it from what? Health Care?
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Saving it from having to pay for an unwanted entitlement! Saving it from an out of control Congress hell bent on spending money we do not have.
  
  Good enough for you?
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You mean like the over $700Billion that we spend to defend ourselves from...who has invaded us since WWII, again? Was it nobody? Yes, I think it was nobody. Lemme double check.
  
  (looks up "Invasions of the United States by foreign nations since 1941" on google)
  
  Yep, I was right. Nobody.
  
  And before anyone says AlQuaida, they managed to bring down those planes and buildings (and kill those people) in spite of the billions we've spent on defense.
  
  So if the tea partiers want to
  "Sav[e America] from an out of control Congress hell bent on spending money we do not have." perhaps they should take a look at the out of control defense budget (that has been used not to defend but to attack).
  
  But we can't question defense spending, that would make us un-American! That would mean we hate the troops! That would mean...wait, no...hang on...that would mean...ummmm...I have it! That would mean we're actually for fiscal responsibility and not just the destruction of government programs we happen disagree with.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  We were invaded during WW2? That's as far as I got, I then realized if you think we were invaded during WW2 then this would go nowhere.
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And the ignorance abounds.
  The Japanese invaded and occupied our territory during WWII.
  "A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a large U.S. force to eject them."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign
  
  And you probably think I'm the ignorant one.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "You mean like the over $700Billion that we spend to defend ourselves from...who has invaded us since WWII, again? Was it nobody? Yes, I think it was nobody."
  
  Seems like it's working then, doesn't it?
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Why "entitlement" is used as a dirty word? "Entitlement is a LEGAL concept that implies a RIGHT granted. Freedom of Speech and Religion, Equality, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ad to vote, are some of the "Entitlements" that US citizens have. Why people can't have the RIGHT to have equal and just access to health care? Isn't that a HUMAN RIGHT?
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well then, why isn't owning a house a HUMAN RIGHT? How about good shoes and a warm coat in winter? How about vacations, jewelry, massages? Shouldn't it be a HUMAN RIGHT that all people eat the same quality of food? How is it fair that a person with more money can afford to eat healthier, or live in a house better able to withstand a storm, or a warmer coat, or stress-reducing vacations, etc? If I'm taller than you it should be a HUMAN RIGHT that you get platform shoes that make us the exact same height so you don't feel bad about yourself or suffer any disadvantage. If you are smarter than me a chip should be implanted in your brain to make it difficult for you to concentrate, so I won't feel bad about your advantage. If I'm stronger than you it is your HUMAN RIGHT that I be forced to wear heavy weights on my body 24/7 so we can be more equal. And on and on it goes...
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, is a HUMAN RIGHT to have Standard Adequate living that includes housing, food, clothing, and health care (among other rights) as stated in "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (1948), Article 25:1
  
  " Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
  
  You can fact check here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
  
  My comment was a rational and respectful one, I don't get the attitude in your reply, neither your rant which not invalidate my main argument: That "Entitlement" is a Legal concept which implies a Right granted.
  
  Maybe we can also rally for the Right to have "Bling" ; )
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  There you go, it's just a tiny step further to 'declaring' it a HUMAN RIGHT to have any and everything you want and in exact equal measure to everyone else. Gee, what does that sound like?
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The last line was just a joke! Peace!
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You could start the Bling Party Movement. "As for me, give me Bling or give me death!" I could see it on a T-shirt.
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Good one! You should copyright that soon before someone declares the Right to sell it on a shirt ; ) Take care!
  reply report
  61
  WizardOfOzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Agree with you with this one Sab or at least it seems like it. The UN is as corrupt as any other circus troupe, I wouldn't take any advice of that lot. You have the right to find your own food, your own water, make your own shelter and your own clothing.
  reply report
2. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Bernake said yesterday, by 2020 our national debt will be more than 100% of GDP, Greece is in a similar situation, have you seen what's happening there? The interest on our debt will be 1 trillion dollars a year. Medicare, medicaid and socials security alone will eat up the entire federal budget, forget about health care, defense and the 1000s of other programs paid for with our tax money. We ignore these issue at our own peril, and right now Obama and his socialist gang of radicals is doing just that, ignoring it!
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
You might have some money if you weren't foolish enough to allow Wall Street to run your financial system.
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Uh huh, we might have some money if we didn't give it away to other Nations too! We might have some money if our Politicians didn't blow it on things like health care or their idiotic pet projects. We might have some money if they didn't bailout private companies who will just need more!
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Or more defense spending than the entire continent of Europe combined.
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  More than the rest of the world combined.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures
  
  (I don't make this stuff up - unlike some others....)
  reply report
  61
  WizardOfOzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Might have some money if you didn't import almost everything. Might have some money if you weren't pay interest on the massive foreign debt portfolio.
  reply report
2. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The Fed runs our system. Don't worry though Obama's financial reform creates a permanent bail out fund, and will decide when companies get to big. The bail out fund will be paid for by the "banks" with fees on transactions, and we all know that means you and I will be filling that bail out fund with our money.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Not Will, he lives in the U.K. which makes me wonder why he cares what the U.S. does.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Oh that explains a lot. He's jealous of our freedom and wants us to be socialist like Great Britian.
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  My understanding is that the "permanent bailout fund" under consideration is a fund the banksters would be required to create or contribute to in order to avoid future bailouts using taxpayer funds. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
  reply report
3. 92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And now the democrats are making it worse with the pending Dodd bill:
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … ll_st.html
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Barone is a right-wing ideologue. The truth is that the Republicans are trying to gut an already weak bill.
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, maybe they would like to post the list of bills the GOP proposed to regulate banking over the 8 years the GOP had Congreess or the 6 years they had Congress and the White HOuse. That's the period when the housing bubble was created - and ignored.. uness there's a list of regualtion and reform from the GOP during that period...
  
  And the banking reform proposed by democrats is opposed by who???
  
  Give me a hint.. A Heard of Elephants??? That's too hard..
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "8 years the GOP had Congreess or the 6 years they had Congress and the White HOuse"
  
  Where exactly do you get these years from? You do realize you are completely wrong don't you?
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Doug, try to keep up. During the 107th, 110th, and 111th congresses, Republicans had 50 or less senators.
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
The money you spend on other nations? Is that the 700 US bases maintained worldwide? Or the 'aid' in high explosives you have been dispatching to Iraq after that little mistake over WMD?
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That's it Will, you got it. The U.S. has only spent money in other Nations to further its own self interest. I am all for not spending money in Iraq/Afghanistan/England/France/Etc.
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, we spend $4-5 billion on Israel which is clearly inimical to our own interest because it fuels terrorism against the U.S. and provides no useful benefits to the United States.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You don't like the Jews Ralph?
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Anti-Semitism is en vogue among the 'liberals' - AGAIN
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I am not an anti-Semite, and I don't appreciate being called one by a little two-bit troll.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm so happy to hear that. I expect you would want your words to always make clear that you are not.
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Jews are fine. I disagree strongly with Israel's draconian policies in Palestine and with the U.S. policy of siding with Israel and giving them billions of American taxpayers' money only to have Netanyahu and the fundamentalist Israelis thumb their noses at their benefactor.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Jews are fine."
  
  How big of you.
  reply report
  62
  lovemychrisposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It's the genocidal Likud party we can do without.
  Oh, bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran....you got any kids going to die for that sabby?
  I heard someone on Savage the other night who predicted Israel or America would attack Iran by the summer.
  He said they would even possibly use EMT technology...what that is I don't know.
  
  In case you don't have a memory, this same kind of propaganda was used up to the Iraq invasion.
  PNAC empire..the next phase.
  And when do the Israeli's have to join the rest of the world and own up to having Nukes? When do they have to play by the rules? EVER?
  
  I'll ask again, You have any kids who will die for this sabby?
  
  Rabbis against Zionism:
  http://www.nkusa.org/
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
I couldn't resist this little speech from Ron Paul:

"The conservatives and the liberals, they both like to spend," Paul said. "Conservatives spend money on different things. They like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.

"Don’t you think it’s rather conservative to say, ‘Oh it’s good to follow the Constitution. Oh, except for war. Let the President go to war anytime they want.’ We can do better with peace than with war."

There is a youtube video of him ranting about the American Empire somewhere. Google it if you are interested.

Sorry, to apply my UK eyes to the US political scene. Will it survive?
reply report
1. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Well you're not going to get any argument from me on the wars. I'm all for pulling out of the Middle east and all the other 700 places around the world. I'd love to tell the rest of the world to go f**k themselves and protect your own interests. I'm sick of spending my tax money on a bunch of ungrateful socialist critics that somehow think they're better than us.
  reply report
2. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Dr. Paul is an interesting man, I find I agree with him on most things. The problem is most people would consider his ideas radical and would not vote for him for President.
  reply report
3. 58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Sooo a question, Poppa and TK,
  
  Wouold you support deep cuts to miliary spending and foreign aid to help balance the budget?
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
I'm glad you understand what US foreign policy is all about Papa.
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And you are making a lot of friends here yourself.
  reply report
2. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Why? You don't benefit from keep the straights of Hormuz open? South Korea doesn't benefit from US might? What about all the jobs created on foreign soil by those military bases? Unemployment isn't high enough in Europe? Let's see, Great Britain hasn't had any terrorist attacks on their soil? Maybe it would be better if you guys carried the load in the Middle East? Maybe you should fight the pirates off of Somalia? Maybe you guys should handle the peace talks with Israel and stand up to Soviet aggression. Why don't you go rebuild Haiti, Chile, and China? You can free the fight between India and Pakistan. You be the one to bring justice in the Balkans. You take care of aids in Africa. Go ahead you do it you do it all you and the rest of the countries that hate American "imperialism". You go ahead you deal with North Korea and Iran, or maybe the rest of the UN can do it right after America pulls out of that useless organization and takes our money with us. They can move to Great Britain and bring their useless charter with them, and from that base they can write angry letters to all the worlds tyrants backed by third world military might and money! Go! We're done with you and the rest of the world! Who needs you?
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Many nations LOVED our foreign policy in World War II!
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes they did! I'll remind them that too was an illegal war prosecuted in defiance of the will of the American people.
  
  Sometimes I wonder why we bothered.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  are you saying that America should not have fought in World War 2?
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Given the amount of animosity directed at the USA from Europe, yes. I'm sick of hearing about the charges of imperialism and hegemony from evil America. It's our fault the terrorists attacked us, blah blah blah.
  
  Americans didn't want to go to war then but FDR made it impossible for us not to. Europe is just lucky we had a socialist dictator for a president otherwise you might all be speaking German.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  well, i admire your consistency of thought as an isolationist (hypocrisy is distasteful) even though I can’t agree at all with that position
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes hypocrisy is distasteful as is ingratitude.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  True enough.. although I call Nazism and the massacre of millions of innocent people even more distasteful
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. Still if national defense is only protecting your borders, then the USA didn't have to get involved. There's plenty of genocide around the world today especially in Africa, does that mean Americans should spend their tax money and go their rescue? Even if it's morally the right thing to do we would still be criticised for it, Muslims would complain we're on their soil, foreign nations would complain. Just look at Iraq, okay so a mistake was made and we invaded yet no one can find anything good in removing Saddam from power??? All we get is criticism. I say let them all develop nuclear weapons. It's the people in Europe that will threatened first when Iran gets their missile, so you guys take care of it. Go sit down and have a nice chat with Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu, we'll take the money we save and build more bigger more accurate nuclear weapons of our own and aim them over there and at the first hint of a launch from Iran we'll turn that dessert into glass. That's American tax money well spent!
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think national defense is only protecting your borders when they are physically attacked or crossed
  
  You don't think that the fascists taking over the world piece by piece would have threatened the shores of America eventually?
  After all, the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor
  
  Would you rather have fought them in California or Florida or New York?
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "I'll remind them that too was an illegal war prosecuted in defiance of the will of the American people."
  
  The declaration of war against Japan was approved by 82 Yeas to 0 nays in the Senate, and by Unanimous Consent in the House.
  
  The declaration of war against Germany was approved by 88 yeas to 0 nays in the Senate, and by Unanimous Consent in the house
  
  The declaration of war against Italy was approved by 90 yeas to 0 nays in the Senate, and 399 yeas, 1 "present," and 30 "not voting" in the house.
  
  Illegal? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah I'm not going to give you a dissertation on how FDR got us into the war while professing ending the embargo of weapons to belligerents would certainly keep us out of it. I'm sure you're aware of the events leading up to world war 2 and the roots of that action in the Treaty of Versailles. Naturally after our ships were attacked having violated the agreement with Germany not to carry weapons in the war zone Congress and the American people would have no choice but to vote for war.
  
  You talk about the "illegal" war with Iraq but you leave out the part where Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions to surrender his WMD's and how he kept stalling and denying access to UN inspectors or how he refused ultimatums to allow inspectors access. Never mind if our intelligence was bad or even if it was made up, which I don't believe, Saddam brought on the war himself and could have avoided it. Your selective memory of history serves your arguments well but like a missing ingredient in a good recipe leaves a bad tastes in one's mouth.
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions to surrender his WMD's and how he kept stalling and denying access to UN inspectors or how he refused ultimatums to allow inspectors access."
  
  Wait, aren't you the same guy who said that it would be good if the US "pulled] out of that useless organization and t[ook] our money with us."?
  
  Either the UN is worthwhile, or it isn't. If not, then defiance of the UN is no reason to invade (and violate another nation's sovereignty). If it is, shouldn't we not invade other countries without UN approval?
  
  You overlook the fact that, in spite of Saddam's delaying tactics, the UN did not resolve that Iraq should be attacked.
  
  So, on the one hand (if you're anybody else), the UN should be respected and obeyed, but on the other hand (if you're the USA) the UN is pointless and can be ignored when convenient.
  
  Your argument? Needs salt.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, it is pointless and should be ignored, glad that's been settled.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  House Resolution 114
  
  UN Security Council Resolution 678
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You mean the isolationist policy that kept us out of WWII until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? That foreign policy? Yeah, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, and Great Britain (especially the people of London) just loved that.
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Oh and now you're complaining because we didn't get involved quick enough? You can't have it both ways Jeff should we defend other nations against evil or not?
  
  As far as I'm concerned you can all fend for yourselves!
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You better watch out he'll consult his history book and find where the Russians invaded Disneyland!
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff has done a good job of supporting his positions with facts And he sliced and diced the contradictions in your arguments.
  
  "So, on the one hand (if you're anybody else), the UN should be respected and obeyed, but on the other hand (if you're the USA) the UN is pointless and can be ignored when convenient."
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That wasn't my argument!
  
  Sliced and Diced? Jeff said the United States was invaded in 1941, where exactly did he provide proof of that?
  
  Sorry, dougie, just like your years that the Republicans held Congress, you is wrong!
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Jeff said the United States was invaded in 1941, where exactly did he provide proof of that?"
  
  Yeah, I said that, just like Al Gore said he invented the internet and Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Al Gore did invent a series of tubes running from Sarah Palin's house to Russia so he could share his BS about global warming with them (and offer them some great deals on tobacco).
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You can be funny sometimes Sab.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what your point in bringing those quotes into this is, all of those people said those very things. Lets look at what you did say, now remember "words mean things!"
  
  Jeff said
  "You mean like the over $700Billion that we spend to defend ourselves from...who has invaded us since WWII, again? Was it nobody? Yes, I think it was nobody. Lemme double check."
  
  (looks up "Invasions of the United States by foreign nations since 1941" on google)
  
  "who has invaded us since WWII" Since, meaning during WW2 we had been invaded..
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff, you can't have it both ways. Do you want us to spend money on defense or not?? Personally, I'm all for trimming back the defense budget and getting rid of stupid grants so that someone can study the sex habits of South American tree frogs.
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "You don't benefit from keep the straights of Hormuz open?" We do it to keep the oil flowing, and for no other reason.
  "South Korea doesn't benefit from US might?"
  It does, no question.
  "What about all the jobs created on foreign soil by those military bases?"
  I'm sure they're awesome. American dollars flowing overseas, and the tea party movement doesn't care.
  "Let's see, Great Britain hasn't had any terrorist attacks on their soil?"
  Dude? A car bomb blew up in Belfast on the 12th of this month! Good thing the US is keeping all the terrorists away, huh? Oh, wait, it wasn't Arabs or Muslims that did it, so it doesn't count, is that it? Or are you just completely unaware of current events beyond the shoreline of North America?
  "Maybe you guys should handle the peace talks with Israel and stand up to Soviet aggression. "
  Hang on: Soviet aggression? Really? Do you remember the collapse of the Soviet Union? It doesn't exist anymore!
  "You go ahead you deal with North Korea and Iran."
  LOL, Iran was being held in check nicely by the power of Saddam's Iraq. The US never did Iran a bigger favor than when we invaded and destabilized their next-door neighbor.
  "or maybe the rest of the UN can do it right after America pulls out of that useless organization and takes our money with us."
  Our money? Our money that we're not giving to the UN? The US owes the UN over $400Million.
  
  Look, I think the US is a darn good country and a great place to live, and does more good than bad in the world. But it's really hard to defend her when ignorant people start spouting a bunch of jingoistic hogwash. Please stop. You're making us look like jerks.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Like that one guy who thinks the United States was invaded in 1941? Ignorant like that?
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Like that one guy who has no idea that Japan occupied the Aleutian Islands (US territory) during WWII? Ignorant like that?
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
US foreign policy is no secret. Just visit any library or bookshop and visit the "Foreign Policy' section. Any number of retired State Department officials will tell you exactly what they did in office.
US politicians are equally honest. They will tell you they are acting in this way or that to defend or promote American interests. Every other country behaves in exactly the same way, though they may be less straightforward about it.
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, well, I like Poppa Blues version of foreign policy better!
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That is to say you prefer fantasy to history.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If its Jeff's History it is fantasy!
  reply report
91
Will Apseposted 8 years ago
Papa. I reckon you right. You don't need the rest of the world. The US is big enough to pull up the drawbridge and get along just fine.

It has also been shown that the average US citizen is worse off as a result of globalization (slightly, at any rate). On the other hand the very rich in the US have done very well from globalization. Their incomes has risen by around fifty per cent in a twenty year period (while everyone else's income has stagnated or slipped).

I reckon we can expect globalization to continue.

Incidentally, the country to be hit hardest by a US isolationist approach would the UK. Which is why the UK is even keener to go to war at the drop of a hat than the US. Anything to keep the US engaged on its project of worldwide influence/leadership/hegemony/domination whatever you want to call it.

Anyway, sleep time. Good night all.
reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago
reply report
55
Padrinoposted 8 years ago
You didn't say Territories. Nice try though.

"You mean like the over $700Billion that we spend to defend ourselves from...who has invaded us since WWII, again? Was it nobody? Yes, I think it was nobody. Lemme double check."

(looks up "Invasions of the United States by foreign nations since 1941" on google)

Yep, I was right. Nobody.
reply report
1. 87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  And, if you want to get technical, I also didn't say that the US was invaded during WWII (although US territory was invaded and occupied, which somehow I doubt you even knew), just that we haven't been invaded since then. Nice try, though.
  
  Jingoism, selective vision, and lack of reading comprehension, too. Golly, I hope you didn't go to public school.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Then what does this mean?
  
  (looks up "Invasions of the United States by foreign nations since 1941)
  
  Digging a hole aint ya?
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So you think we have been invaded since 1941, and that's why you're disagreeing with me?
  
  Sigh. I'm reminded of an old saying: "Never rassle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." Or "Never try to teach a pig to dance. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
  
  I think I'll start taking that advice.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You probably are one smart guy, but you screwed the pooch on this one, just admit the mistake and move on.
  reply report
  68
  Pandoras Boxposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Red herrings. Silly boy.
  reply report
55
Padrinoposted 8 years ago
Its obvious you were ignorant to the fact Hawaii was not a State in 1941, you are too proud to admit your ignorance and continue on with the Aleutian Islands crap. Its ok, nobody is perfect!
reply report
1. 77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  do you think the Japanese were attacking the people of Hawaii??
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I know exactly who the Japanese attacked, are you confused also?
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  yes, please tell me whose soldiers they intended to kill
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  They intended to kill American Soldiers and sailors, and? Does that make Hawaii a State in 1941? What exactly is your point?
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  i didn't say Hawaii was a State..
  
  I asked you who you thought the Japanese were trying to kill.
  
  They willingly murdered American soldiers... should the US have stated out of the war because Hawaii was not a State?
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Why are you trying to change what this whole conversation is about? The U.S. was not invaded in 1941, do you dispute this?
  
  My personal opinion is that the U.S. should have been involved long before 1941, our allies were being bombed and FDR would not act!
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I was having a conversation with Poppa Blues, and you jumped in with this Hawaii is or isnt a state stuff..
  
  If you will look back, my point to him was regarding my belief that "Idon't think national defense is only protecting your borders when they are physically attacked or crossed"
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't jump into your conversation you jumped into mine with questions about who was attacked at Pearl Harbor! I did not respond to you until you asked this question! Nor was I speaking to Poppa Blues!
  
  So, do you dispute the fact that the U.S. was not invaded in 1941? I await your reply!
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  once again, look at the exchanges between Poppa Blues and I.
  
  My reference to Hawaii was in response to his last post before that. The point I was making to POPPA BLUES was that i disagreed with his assertion that " if national defense is only protecting your borders, then the USA didn't have to get involved."
  
  I could care less if Hawaii was or wasn't a State. My point that I making that if we were to bury our heads in the sand, eventually we too in North American would be attacked.
  
  The point I was trying to make to you AFTER you jumped in with this Hawaii statehood thing (I suppose since you thought I was interjecting in your discussion with Jeff Berndt) was that regardless of the status of Hawaii at the time, Americans were the targeted victims of the attack....
  
  ie sooner you can be an isolationist only for so long, but sooner or later, the aggressors will come knocking on your door
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I agree totally! I think Poppa's problem is he is tired of America being blamed for every ill in this World, I too am tired of it.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  i can understand his point...
  
  sometimes you can't win if you are the superpower...
  
  but the alternative..that of being an isolationist, just gets you even more screwed in the long run
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah! I'm sure that's true, but it might be fun for awhile.
  report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor with the intent to kill Americans.
  
  In January 1941, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto began planning for a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto feared that he did not have the resources to win a long war against the United States. He therefore advocated a surprise attack that would destroy the US Fleet in one crushing blow.
  
  Yamamoto's plan was eventually agreed by the Japanese Imperial Staff and the strike force under the command of Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo sailed from the Kurile Islands on 26th November, 1941.
  
  Nagumo's fleet was positioned 275 miles north of Oahu. On Sunday, 7th December, 1941, 105 high-level bombers, 135 dive-bombers and 81 fighter aircraft attacked the the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor. In their first attack the Japanese sunk the Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia and California. The second attack, launched 45 minutes later, hampered by smoke, created less damage.
  
  In two hours 18 warships, 188 aircraft and 2,403 servicemen were lost in the attack. Luckily, the navy's three aircraft carriers, Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga, were all at sea at the time. The following day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a united US Congress declared war on Japan.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure they knew bombing U.S. ships would kill Americans!
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  no.. Tojo hoped they were all on shore leave
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  They knew they would be killing Americans, but that was not the reason for the attack, They "ATTACKED" they did not invade.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  oh man
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Woolman I know, that is what I have been saying for 30 minutes. You started your post with
  
  "Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor with the intent to kill Americans."
  
  Yes, Woolman they intended to kill Americans.
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Let me say it again,
  
  On January 1941, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto began planning for a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto feared that he did not have the resources to win a long war against the United States. He therefore advocated a surprise attack that would destroy the US Fleet in one crushing blow.
  
  They knew there would be deaths, but there "PRIMARY" intent was to destroy the "American Fleet", that is my point, however as you put it lives are part of the "American Fleet", and I understand that concept.
  
  Thank you for thoughts on how I started my post, good job!!!!!!
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Who the hell do you think was in the US fleet??
  
  the French??
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor with the intent to kill Americans."
  
  Wow, I can't believe you actually wrote that.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  the internet is a strange an wonderful place, eh?
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Prince Sab Oh once again you are the voice of perfection, maybe read before you react.
  
  Do you analyze every single thing that a person posts if it is not in your realm of what you consider to be intelligent? Read the post again before you throw your sarcasm and your satire to prove that you are always right and the rest of the world is wrong. So here let me post this for you also, and if I am going to fast let me know and I will slow down for you.
  Let me say it again what Japan's "PRIMARY" intent was,
  
  On January 1941, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto began planning for a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto feared that he did not have the resources to win a long war against the United States. He therefore advocated a surprise attack that would destroy the US Fleet in one crushing blow.
  
  They knew there would be deaths, but there primary intent was to destroy the "American Fleet", that is my point, however as you put it lives are part of the "American Fleet", and I understand that concept.
  
  Wow, maybe you should be a editor, thanks for your opinion on how I started my post, good job!!!!!!
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gonna side with Wollman60 here. To a military person, battles are fought for objectives. The Japanese objective was to put the US Pacific Fleet on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The loss of life was incidental. Contrast that to 9/11 when the spectacular loss of civilian life WAS the objective.
  
  The military objective at Pearl Harbor was never an invasion. That's not true of the Battle of Midway, which the Japanese DID intend to take, or the Alaskan Islandswhich Japan DID take and hold.
  
  Any sane person who has taken the time to consider what the world would have become if the Nazis had prevailed in Europe and Japan had completed the conquest of the Pacific has to favor the US entry into the war.
  
  Withouh the US entry into the war - the conqests by Japan and Germany are nearly certain. Would the US have been invaded? An intereting hypothetical. Considering how brutal the war was to civilians, I'm glad WWII wasn't fought here, and though the US itself was not invaded, we correctly fought the war as if an invasion was imminent.
  
  You can split hairs about whether we were indated or not if US territories were taken, but if you go to the larger point - the US feared and expected a Pacific Coast invasion. That concern was VERY much part of the war effort.
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  That is some pathetic spin right there, but I don't blame you for being embarrassed.
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You talking to me?
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see anyone else desperately trying to spin out of an utterly ridiculous assertion. (actually, Jeff is too I suppose)
  reply report
  0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Let me put this as nicely as possible, I do not really care what you think, or what you try to preach to me, in these forums, I would appreciate that you think before you correct someone, maybe I do not understand your philosophy of thinking but I do see that you have a hard time respecting other people thoughts, instead of asking what they meant you assume, and then you use your condescending remarks. It will take a lot more then your comments to embarrass me, and I will not be one of those who sit back and say I am sorry to people like you, when I feel my point was obviously very clear.
  
  I mean no disrespect, but I will react when attacked, I respect your thoughts, and ideas.
  
  with respect
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  His point was obvious, i.e., that the purpose of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not killing Americans but to put the U.S. Pacific fleet out of commission.
  reply report
2. 87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. It, too, was a US territory, and the Japanese didn't invade it.
  They attacked it. There's a difference, and it's pretty big. That's okay, nobody's perfect.
  
  The Japanese invaded and occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, also US Territory.
  
  But hey, you go ahead and believe what you want.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What does any of that have to do with the FACT that the United States was not invaded in 1941?
  
  No one denied that Hawaii was a territory, no one is talking about Kiska or Attu except for you and only because you think it will somehow change what you said. Newsflash---It won't.
  
  And I will continue to believe that the United States was not invaded in 1941, what are you going to believe?
  
  You may want to refrain from calling people ignorant until you read an actual history book.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago

Arrrrrrrrr, TK angry now!
reply report
55
Padrinoposted 8 years ago
Back to the topic of the thread

What's wrong with being an extremist? This Country was founded by extremists! They understood that liberty sometimes has to be taken!

I for one am glad they did.
reply report
1. 77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I agree...
  
  If you are an 'extremist', then at least be true to yourself and say "Yes, my views are extremist and not in line with the thinking of most rational people at this current period in time"
  
  at least you will be honest
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Then the debate is what is rational. Is it rational to keep spending money we do not have? Is it rational to turn over 1/6 of the U.S. economy to an entity that has never run anything effectively?
  
  What's rational?
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that the debate is "what is rational".
  
  Rational people can have different view points.. even extreme view points
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Sure it's the debate, do you think that all of the Tea Party people are acting rationally?
  
  There is some gauge you use to determine what is rational.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  from what I understand, they are acting because they believe in certain things.
  
  I might disagree with their beliefs, I might think that their policies are not wise, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs are or are not irrational per say.. just not functional or just
  
  I might not agree in something you write, but I wouldn't call you irrational
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Fine, but some people may have a different opinion than you about what I write. "I consider it extreme to turn over health care to the federal government." Somebody will read that and consider that is an extreme viewpoint because the bill doesn't actually do that.
  
  But, the bill does create new regulations that Insurance providers will not be able to sustain without raising premiums, they will eventually go out of business and voila the government will be in the health care business.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  do you think that these Tea Party folks are being called extremist because they oppose government health care, as I understand many Americans do... or is there something else?
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  They are being called extremists because those on the left know they can marginalize them that way. Its a tactic that has served the left well.
  
  For proof see above
  
  Are there some extremists in the group? I'm sure there are but they are far outnumbered by good people who are justifiably angry at their elected officials.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  so how would you distinguish these 'extremists" from the other 'good people'.. by their ideology, anger, willingness to violence??
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Has their been any violence caused by Tea party people? I haven't heard of any, its not my place to distinguish anyone. But, if I was standing next to a person carrying a "Hitler was right" sign, I would certainly use my brain and remove myself from his company.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  are there are lot of those 'hitler was right' people?
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Don't know, it was an example, but you knew that.
  report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  no really.. i don't know how many of these types of people are involved in the movement... but I would assume that if there were a lot, then that would be a good reason to look very negatively at the group as a whole
  report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I have never been to a Tea Party rally and have no idea what kind of signs are displayed. I agree with the stance they take that government is too large and spends too much, and maybe in the future I will attend a rally. I won't stand next to the Hitler guy though!
  report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  are they mostly Republicans not happy with their own party?
  report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think they have a mixed group of Republicans/Independents/Democrats. I voted for Obama but he lost me a long time ago, I wanted real change and got Bush redux.
  report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  My impression is that one reason they are being called extremists is because of some of the extremist picket signs that have been taped and photographed at some of their rallies. I just watched a Fox News segment on one of the rallies today, and I didn't see any offensive signs. Perhaps they have wised up and broomed the "God Hates Fags," "Obama is a Nazi," "Stop Murdering Children" signs which turn off a lot of people.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Or maybe they have better security and weeded out the ACORN infiltrators.
  
  Maybe?
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe they managed to isolate and remove the angry liberals who made those signs and tried to parade them around?
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  More likely that Faux News edited them out of the tape.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  So anyway Ralph, I asked earlier if you liked Jews, or is it just Israel you don't care for?
  reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago
LOL! What the f**k happened to this thread??? How did we get so off course??
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think it was some of the brilliant statements that were contrary to U.S. History.
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Nice of you to take responsibility, Padrino.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I don't really know what to say to that.
  
  I wish you would own your mistake.
  reply report
  87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If I made a mistake, it was to omit the word "territory" in my original post, thus giving you the illusion of ground to stand on.
  
  Go ask the governor of Puerto Rico (also a US territory) if he and his constituents are Americans or not. Try telling the people of Guam and American Samoa that they're not really US citizens because those territories aren't really part of the US.
  
  Dang, I'm gettin' all muddy again...
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The mistake you made was saying the United States was invaded in 1941, when shown the truth you tried to camouflage yourself in the use of the word territories! If you want to continue this feel free but I am done with it.
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago
reply report
1. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Always there with, well, nothing..
  
  At least you're consistent.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Your circle-speak is very entertaining. You do realize you're actually posting this stuff right? Not just thinking to yourself.
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you have a picture you could put up that says what you were trying to convey?
  reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago
reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago
reply report
60
Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years ago
reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
Actually, why couldn't we have a policy of isolationism? Close the borders. Eat only foods grown in America. Stop importing anything from foreign countries. Cut off all foreign aid. Stop policing the world and police the borders instead. Stop shipping jobs overseas. Buy American goods made by American workers. Drill our own oil and natural gas and complement that with wind and solar energy. I like it!

What is it that we couldn't survive without?
reply report
1. 77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  International trade, for one
  reply report
2. 55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think the Greek is right at some point someone would want what we have. We are the lone superpower and some Nations would see our isolationism as aggression, they would probably band together and then it would be on.
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ..and think of one exterior aggressive superpower that has you totally surrounded
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  We are kind of surrounded aren't we?
  reply report
  77
  Greek Oneposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  well.. as a Canadian, i do covet your Californian women
  reply report
  55
  Padrinoposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  They are all from somewhere else or at least used to be someone else.
  reply report
55
Padrinoposted 8 years ago
Do you guys get paid to be wrong?
reply report
84
Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago
The way I see it, there are extremists in every group. It's up to the mainstream to control them and not condone them.
reply report
1. 92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I totally agree, UW!
  reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
Doug, this is in response to your question about GOP trying to regulate banks:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … KSoiNbnQY0

Be sure to find out how much Dodd and Obama received from them in contributions.
reply report
1. 62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The Banksters supported Obama and Dodd because they like to back winners. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are getting what they want on bank regulation. They and the Republicans have been trying their best to water down Dodd's already weak proposal.
  reply report
2. 58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  This is from the news today.
  
  http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/04/15/ … olluter%2F
  
  I agree that Fanny & Freddy needed controls. I agree there is WAY too much influence by Wall Street, Banks and Insurance in DC. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court didn't help by openeng the flloodgates for corporations to spend on elections.
  
  I am glad Dodd isn't running again. The bill proposed isn't perfect but it's a step in the right direction. The GOP wants to go in the WRONG direction.
  
  I stand by my asserion. The GOP has a doctrine of 'self-regulating' banking and industry. The GOP wanted to regulate ONLY Fanny & Freddy (quaisi gov't agencies) who were on the receiving end of the loans. They did not originate the loans, The fix should have been regulation and standards when/where the loans originated. The 'bubble' would never have formed.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, thats all well and good but what about abortion? Both sides want what they want regulated and not regulated so wheres the difference?
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Doug, I agree with you about the SCOTUS decision.
  
  I disagree about the underwear point. Several US companies make underwear in the US, including Skiviez, Eco Goods, Sahara, and UWEARUSA. I think Jockey is still made in the US?
  reply report
58
Doug Hughesposted 8 years ago
Isolationism might be a problem for a country that doesn't make its own underwear.

You might read up on the 1979 Oil Crisis. Remeber Even/Odd days and 1 hour waits to get gas?

Wall Street exported our manufacturing capability to break the unions. So 'American Interests' now coincide with stabilizing despotisms like China to protect the profits of Big Business who screwed over the middle-class decades ago.

We are on a path to decrease our dependence on the rest of the world for our most basic needs. We aren't there yet. Wall Street likes the 3rd world slave market of labor. As far as I can tell, teabaggers haven't figured out that a weak federal government and no/low regulation takes the US down the path of increased dependence and American Imperialism to enforce the exploitation of the 3rd world.
reply report
1. 68
  Pandoras Boxposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  BINGO! Great post.
  reply report
2. 54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Wall Street exported our manufacturing capability to break the unions"
  
  Wrong. Manufacturing went where it was most profitable (like it always does when not artificially controlled).
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Right - those manufacturing machines just unbolted themselves from the floor and went to China where a repressive government imposes slave wages under threat of prison or death... Got to love that free market.
  reply report
62
Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago
The Senate passed the unemployment compensation extension bill today (still has to be reconciled with House bill) by a 60-40 nearly straight party line vote. George Voinovich was the only GOP vote in favor. That's a pretty good indication of who the GOP is not concerned about--the people who are unemployed and losing their homes and in bankruptcy.
reply report
1. 54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, it indicates that the GOP knows that people need jobs, not never-ending dependency. People behind on mortgages (many should not have gotten into in the first place) are not going to get caught up on unemployment benefits. People need jobs, not never ending dole, and the lefty approach of throwing endless amounts of money - somewhere - doesn't look like it is making that happen. If the Dems really cared about people they'd concentrate more on encouraging real job growth instead of manufactured dependency in the name of ideology.
  reply report
62
lovemychrisposted 8 years ago
Abortion happens in my body and has nothing to do with you. Anyone who is anti-abortion is no lover of freedom and no lover of individual rights. You want to control my private life and my private decisions....until that baby you force me to have is born, that is. Then you want nothing to do with the bastard. (Not you personally, but the anti-abortionist. The pro-lifers who kill people.)

Saw this clip on the web... Barney Frank: "The Republicans are not only in bed with the banks, they wake up and serve them breakfast!"
reply report
60
William R. Wilsonposted 8 years ago
I think this poll is very interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 … aphic.html

Note that 84% of Tea Party supporters believe that their views are shared by the majority of Americans, while only 25% of all respondents (the population at large) think so. Also, those who say they support the Tea Party are mainly white middle class males.
reply report
1. 54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-p … phics.aspx
  reply report
60
William R. Wilsonposted 8 years ago
The Tea Partiers invited Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota to speak at their Washington DC rally today.

That makes them, if not extremists, at least loons.

And I thought this was funny:

"Worried about liberal infiltrators, Kevin Terrell, a self-described colonel in the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters militia based in Louisville, led about two dozen camouflaged followers on a patrol around the park. "I'm a little apprehensive because of the left-wing nut jobs out there," Terrell said."

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_ … arty_rally
reply report
1. 68
  Pandoras Boxposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What, I wonder, would they have attempted to do if they had identified any?
  reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
Doug, I saw where you referred to me as one of the Golden Girls on another thread. Which one?? Can I be Rose?? Can I, huh? Can I? She's my fave!

Didn't your mother teach you about name calling?
reply report
1. 58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Since when is 'Golden Girls' offensive. Madam X goes ballistic and does a post 'cause I called her 'sugar'. WOW - my foul mouth!
  
  I think you have a problem with WHAT I say - not my manners and Hubpages won't censor me when I slam righties for complete fabrications or absolute fantasies.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Doug, I didn't go ballistic - I made a joke of it. I would hope HP didn't "slam" you. I believe in free speech - even for those with whom I disagree.
  
  But you didn't answer my question: Can I be Rose??
  reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
Wow, I just read this. According to Gallop/USA, the TEA Party represents the US demographically:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … 05193.html
reply report
1. 58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Note the bait and switch. She says 'Gallup/USA' and she points the one of the most right-wing lunatic rags on the internet - 'realclearpolitics'.
  
  So what percentage of teabaggers did the say are black?
  
  How represented is the GLTG community?
  
  Why do you spread duch obvious lies?
  reply report
  54
  Sab Ohposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "So what percentage of TeaParty supporters did the say are black?"
  
  Gallup says 6% Quite a lot considering that African Americans comprise 11% of the US population.
  reply report
  58
  Doug Hughesposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  African Americans comprise over 12% of the US population. So you think 50% is pretty good?
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm spreading lies?? All I did was to report the Gallup/USA poll. If it was a lie, they told it - not me. As far as RCP being right wing - again, Doug - keep up! They have articles from everywhere, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. BTW, all those are LEFT wing publications, just in case you didn't know. You can't just blatantly accuse something of being a "right wing rag" because you don't agree with it. But I guess in your world, Gallup and USA are "right wing," also.
  
  I'm not a member of the TEA Party, nor do I support it, but if you representational of the other side, I think I might join up! I'm waiting to learn more about it.
  reply report
62
lovemychrisposted 8 years ago
"people need jobs, not never-ending dependency."

Some people actually do need never-ending dependency. Some people are not able to work. Some people must stay home and care for the dis-abled. They don't need to be treated like lepers, and they should have more money, not less! After all, we gave a quarter mil to Michelle Bachmann...puleeze. How many dis-abled families do you think that would help? Would we give a quarter mil to one dis-abled family? Oh my god...hell would freeze over!

Here's a thought: How about the wages go up a little so people can afford to live on what the profiteers charge for everything? ORRR, how about prices go down? oh my god.....hell would freeze over!

Here's another thought: Why don't you actually hire Americans who are looking for work? Cause here's what happens where I live: Right about now, all the International workers start to arrive. They go business to business, taking up all the jobs they can. 2,3 however many they can get. If you're not there before they arrive, forget it...chances are you will not find a job. And they won't hire until they need you...it's a very thin line you must tread as an American looking for work in America around here. Nothing against the Internationals....they are only doing for their families too. But the businesses have some obligation to Americans don't they?
Most have a deal going already to off-shore for their help. They go through agencies and just "order" how many workers they will need. This leaves Americans out in the cold. Like my 15 yr old daughter....like college students home for the summer....Not only have the businesses out-sourced all the jobs, they are now out-sourcing for all their summer help!

Here's another thought: Something I hear the Right say all the time, and it doesn't make sense.
They say Democrats like to give welfare out to people so they will get their votes. Then they turn around and say these lazy people do nothing but sit on their azz, they don't even vote!

Ah, the lovely world of love and light....sure glad they're not haters like me. ahahaha
reply report
62
Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago
Here's a reminder of who got us into the financial and economic crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsDmPEeurfA
reply report
55
joeyhearnposted 8 years ago
Ok, I have to ask this question: As stated in my blog, our children are taught that the members of the colonial tea parties are hero's. That it was an act that brought our country independence. Our forefathers were extremists? Yes. Our forefather committed treason? Yes. Our forefathers were misfits and undesirables? Yes. and here's one that should really get you going, Our forefathers were escaping religious prosecution. WOW! We wanted religious freedom? Who would have taught it? One Nation Under God? Really? and did you know that "OUR OWN CONSTITUTION" says that we as the "PEOPLE" have the right to overthrow a government that is not following the CONSTITUTION?
MMMMMMMM.
reply report
1. 87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Our forefathers were extremists? Yes." Absolutely, Radical, left-wing extremists. The very idea, that a regular guy should be allowed to carry a gun!
  
  "Our forefather committed treason? Yes." Absolutely, against the lawful government of the British empire.
  
  "Our forefathers were misfits and undesirables? Yes." And no. Most of the original tea party mob, and of the mob that provoked the so-called Boston Massacre, were misfits, undesireables, and what we'd now call "the unemployed." But the leaders, like Washington, Jefferson, Adams (both of them) Hancock, Franklin, &c were educated (or self-educated in Franklin's case) and wealthy, with plenty of respect from their neighbors.
  
  "and here's one that should really get you going, Our forefathers were escaping religious prosecution."
  Ah, this one is a good one. Many of our forefathers were escaping religious persecution. In fact, the colony of Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics fleeing persecution in England. Pennsylvania? A haven for Quakers. Massachusetts Bay? Interestingly enough, the Puritans/Separatists that settled in Plymouth were not in fact fleeing religious persecution. They'd already done that! Almost all of them were living in Holland before they went to America. But they were afraid that the Dutch attitudes toward religious tolerance might rub off on their kids and make them start thinking for themselves. So they headed over to America, where they could ensure that nobody would unduly influence their offspring, and God willing, maybe they could do a little persecuting on their own.
  "One Nation Under God? Really?" Here's an interesting but of trivia: when were the words "Under God" inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance? When did the motto "In God We Trust" first appear on our coins? Our paper banknotes?
  
  "did you know that "OUR OWN CONSTITUTION" says that we as the "PEOPLE" have the right to overthrow a government that is not following the CONSTITUTION?"
  Yes, it's called an election. We can peacefully overthrow the government in whole or in part every few years. Is that what you meant?
  reply report
2. 0
  woolman60posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Here ia a copy from the New York Times and CBS, click onlink below to read entire article.
  
  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/featu … y_open2010
  
  Thursday, Apr 15, 2010 09:16 EDT
  
  Who makes up the Tea Party Nation?
  
  A new poll shows that Tea Partiers really, really hate Obama -- and think their movement represents most Americans
  
  By Digby
  
  The New York Times and CBS just released a pretty comprehensive poll on the teabaggers. It probably won't surprise you much.
  
  They are extremely negative and angry. And they really, really hate President Barack Obama.
  
  Here's the NY Times summary:
  
  The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.
  
  They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”
  
  And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”
  
  [...]
  
  Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.
  
  The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.
  reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
Well, Joey, it looks like some of the militia groups are ready to do just that. Read the thread about Oklahoma.

I don't like the way our government is headed, but don't these militia groups realize that if they go too far, martial law will be imposed? The best way to handle this is in the voting booth!
reply report
92
habeeposted 8 years ago
NBC reporter interviews a black TEA Party member:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … table.html

Wow, so we know there's at least ONE black member! lol
reply report
1. 62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Probably an unemployed actor hired by the Tea Party.
  reply report
  81
  CaribeMposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I think he might be related to Michael Steele. (LOL)
  
  Besides what the interview demonstrate? HMMM... Maybe that the exception just proves the norm.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I'm sure that's it, Ralph. Like the ones who were at the South GA rally today. lol
  reply report
62
lovemychrisposted 8 years ago
Bravo to that article!
Right on the money and not afraid to write it.

Now if the party would just get honest with itself....
But that won't happen any time soon.
Face it, they have leaders who think Obama is an Indonesian Muslim and send e-mails out saying "Just another black family on gvt. housing" about the Obama's.

This IS nothing new. We've been here before. It won't work this time.

And if they really want to dis-own from this crap, they'd better do it, and do it forcefully!

I remember years back, Time or Newsweek had an article titled "Greedy Geezers"...the shoe fits.

Ebeneezer Scrooge--maybe they need to watch that movie.
reply report
62
lovemychrisposted 8 years ago
My friend just e-mailed me....
Oliver North called Obama Anti-American on Hannity's show.

Can people really keep saying this about a sitting president?
Isn't that slander?
reply report
1. 87
  Jeff Berndtposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Oliver North called Obama Anti-American on Hannity's show."
  
  Oliver North? The Iran Contra guy? If he called me un-American, I'd take that as a complement.
  reply report
  62
  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  As I recall Oliver North was a convicted criminal.
  reply report

jump to first post

working