Reid expects Tea Party to fade away

LOL, yeah buddy...

 

If you say so. You are ignorant about someone you know nothing about.

Ignorant is not an insult. It means, "lack of knowledge." You're also ignorant about the word "ignorant."

If you say so.

I'm sorry but dictionary.com disagree with you.

Politician:

1. person who is active in party politics.
2. seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
3. person who holds a political office.
4. person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.

In pretty much all examples above Sarah Palin doesn't even fit the bill remotely.

What insults? You've confused me.

 

If the Tea Party is small, just ignore them and they will go away, right? Yet we hear so much about them.
They are large enough to change the debate in DC, and large enough to scare the liberal to the point that
they have to try to hush up the movement by calling them racists, terrorists, extremist, the list goes on.
In Other Words the tea party can not be ignored. and the tea part has lasted over 2 years and is strong as ever.


The tea Part gained power faster than any movement in American history, and still it is not a party, it's an
IDEA, which resonates in the hearts and minds of most America's.

The left is highly scared of this movement, because it marks the end of their socialization of America.
ALL you *******s are wussies, who are afraid to work for yourselfs.


...

 

I'm not a commie or a liberal.

I realise this will be wasted, but as I'm here... You glibly state civil war is unavoidable. I'll ask again, do you not care?

Would you rather have civil war than abide by the political system your forefathers took such pains to construct? Does extremism negate any sense of respect for the democracy your country has spent countless lives and dollars trying to disseminate worldwide? People have given their lives fighting for that freedom. Have you no respect for their memory? You are ready to throw all of that work away just because your political Party was voted out of power?

What are your thoughts on that? Democracy for every country except the US? ...which is henceforth to be ruled by violence ...due to some loonies who can't accept that people voted in a Party they do not support?

While you're talking civil war, does the welfare of your country even come into it? Picture this: Righties bang on about guns. UK has few guns and you've seen the rioting here. What do you think you would have seen had the rioters been armed? Think about it. And think about how your country will look two weeks into it.

It's easy to start a revolution, not easy to control one. Things gather impetus and change direction. You have no idea how it would end and what kind of country you would end up living or dying in.

Anarchists. Be honest. They are just anarchists.

Do you really want anarchy?

It is worrying. They seem no different from extremists, to an objective observer. So dangerous.

 

Sue me.

It wasn't presented as a solution, only an appraisal of the situation as it stands.

There is no room for compromise with liars and thieves like Obama and Reid.

I'm sure the British found the DoI similarly "sickening and distracting".

So you say.

To commonsensical people, calling a spade a spade is all those things. The rest can go to Hell for all I care.

Yeah, too bad Churchill didn't have the wisdom of Chamberlain, huh?

 

You have to finish.That's half the problem with Liberals.
They feel all they have to do is assert something as " whackjobs "
or this or that.WHY.
Why is my claim that The Tea Party is certainly like no other grassroots
movement in History,an " utterly ridiculous claim ".Merely saying so doesn't
make it so.
Unless you feel the Tea Party didn't gain national recognition at grassroots
level or at Town Halls.

 

If the Republicans lose the next election and prove that the Tea Party idea does not resonate in the hearts and minds of most Americans, what then? Will these people be able to accept a second defeat and stop derailing the effective government of US?

 

According to your dictionary definition you provided, you are worn.

I am not sure why you keep arguing this point here. It seems you have been wrong since the beginning, have been shown to be wrong, and now proven your self wrong. Why insist on continuing with being wrong?

 

Sorry, but you can't kill an IDEA, this 2012 is going to send a chill down ALL liberals
nation wide. As proof, look at what the people have said about the unions, they
have voted for those who will limit the UNIONS power in government.

The UNIONS spent 30million in recalls that did not work as they wanted, meaning the
people are still conservative in nature and believe in the Tea Party IDEA, smaller government. To be fair, lets talk more about this after 2012.

...

 

How am I wrong? And how did I prove myself wrong?

I notice you highlighted the first meaning of the word Politician. What makes her active in party politics? Talking occasionally on Fox News? Speaking at Tea Party events? That makes her just about as much of a politician as Ann Coulter, or Andrea Tantaros or Me.

 

As a liberal, I am not afraid of the movement, I see the movement as ignorant for the following reason:

1. It has regressive principles that choose to create a future with age-old values that haven't been advocated since the Thomas Jefferson's argument on the first central bank.

2. It considers its constituents the majority of the citizenry, when they are merely a small faction in relation to the entire population of the United States, as well as the majority of the politically active population. The majority of the population for most part is to varying degrees unaware of the problems this nation faces.

3. It considers its policies to be pragmatic and realistic, when they are really just vague, rational-sounding statements. Policy-based minimalism cannot work in a world with so many factors and moving parts, unless you remove most of the moving parts, which could be detrimental to the nation.

 

I'll be the judge of that.

I won't dignify that with an answer.

I have never advocated or encouraged civil war.

That is increasingly impossible as the government becomes increasingly infested by people who care nothing for the Constitution, and who cater to that segment of the populace which harbors a similar mindset.

What do you think we would see had the police been armed, locked and loaded with live ammo?

 

And like wise I feel that liberals want more and more terrany and less and less liberty.
which is what BIG government will do to you as you give it more and more power over your life.

So we have a disagreement about government, so whats new?


...

 

Are you seriosuly going to pretend you have not been repeatedly wrong on this? my god, the woman, by the definition you presented,. is a politician. I find it utterly hysterical you are denying this, reality, to fit your failed argument.


You have moved the goalpost sand defied English. Want to keep going? or do we need a quorum to get the definition of the word politician to change to fit your failed argument?

 

I don't want big government, I want efficient government and an efficient, quality-based economy. The Tea Party wants to reduce the size of government for the sake of providing as much freedom and liberty without causing mass chaos similar to Shay's Rebellion. I want to reduce government down to an appropriate size that provides a healthy balance of freedom and liberty with law and order.

Creating a small, minimalist government is a Conservative's dream world, as it makes their vague, rational-like minimalist policy sound brilliant. Most liberals beleive government must expand to deal with the ever-expanding moving parts of a global economy and society. I tend to be more pragmatic and favor a balance between minimalist government and big government, which is efficient government,in which policy varies depending on what can be more efficient in practice, not what is ideologically right, something that the extremes of the political spectrum tend to forget.

 

It's a simply question: What makes her a active in party politics? All she is doing is going to events and talking on Fox News as a Contributor. Has she announced her candidacy for higher political office? Does this mean we can start handing out the title of "Politician" for anyone participates in protests and speaking engagements?

You're willing to defy logic at the mere cost of calling someone else wrong. You're the one who is moving the goal post, not me.

 

Moving the goalposts again? Again? Really? Your post wallows in the wrong pool, languishing there in defiance of honesty.

Why not jsut admit you will defend the silliness that is Palin to the end? Whyt not just admit she is a politician? In my first post on this particular subject I predicted that yuo would move the goalposts to fit your failed argument. I did not predict you would move them so often and so far.

You were wrong. You remain wrong.

 

How quickly you forget 2010. 2012 will continue what 2010 started

 

You really have such contempt for Palin. That much is apparent.

What exactly do you want to hear? That Sarah Palin WAS a politician? Fine, he she WAS a politician. She isn't a politician now as I've told you a politician is someone who is actively involved in party politics.

Why shouldn't I admit she's a politician? Because she's not. You even highlighted the definition yourself. Now I ask you a question you can't possibly answer and blame me for your short comings.

Since you won't tell me what makes her so involved in party politics, tell me what makes her a politician?

 

Care to explain how the Democrats are doing with pay go? Nice spin but the GOP is small compared to Obama spending

 

I want to shrink the government down too, down to the 10th amendment. no smaller
no larger, just what is in the 10th amendment. Thats a Tea Party IDEA, sound good to me.



...

 

How realistic is that on a scale of 1 to 10? I'd say at most a 2. In practice, it's nothing but an idealistic pipe dream. Most Tea Party policies sound promising, but only if you have an inability to analyze, sythesize, compare and contrast. Being able to just spit out policy without any thought behind it is what plagues the Tea Party. You can state 100 policies to solve our economic issues, but if you cannot support them with factual proof that is supported with highly intelligent analysis, synthesis, comparison, and contrast, it loses all legitimacy.

By the way, that is an idea, it is not a policy.

Policy means a course of action adopted by a government, political party, etc. Idea means any conception existing in one's mind due to mental comprehension, awareness, or activity. You will have legitimacy when you come up with comprehensive policy, not vague ideas.

 

When you insist Palin is " silliness " you are forgetting she was Voted
Best Governor in the Country one year.That means you don't like what
this Country does.
The Tea Party is also this Country.They are a majority more so than the
19% who are considered Liberals.

 

With the Tea Party being the biggest player out there, I find it to be very possible.
I can see Obamacare repealed, then the EPA defunded, and that is just for starters.

But first I see Obama losing in 2012 with his approval rating being at below 40% as
it is NOW as we speak.

So who in the democrat party do you see that can stop the Tea Party movement?
NON LMAO

...

 

I will consider your posts legitimate when you can come up with comprehensive policy, instead of vague ideas.

The Tea Party will implode due to ideological, rhetorical, and policy-based divide among Republican politicians. Even if the grassroots movement stays afloat, you can only re-elect politicians for so long to try and fulfill your pipe dream. Like I said earlier, the Tea Party realistically is still a small faction of citizens and politicians, that are a small minority of the population.

For example, last year, about 2 percent of the total population would be considered active supporters of the Tea Party, and only 27 percent to some degree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405856.html

Here is a gallup poll article on party identification from 2010:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/democratic-party-drops-2010-tying-year-low.aspx

Democrats had a slght advantage last year over Republicans in terms of party identification.

Here s a gallup poll article on Congressional election projections based upon registered voters. The article states that there is a 2 to 1 negative ratio, statng that 42% would not vote for a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148964/Democrats-Enjoy-Slight-Edge-2012-Congressional-Ballot.aspx