Reid expects Tea Party to fade away

Your definition defines everyone as a politician. Is everyone a politician now?

 

1) You said one, I gave you more
2) They're not yours to give. They are lobbyists, plain and simple.

Tim Philips is a Political strategist
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Century_Strategies

Lol..."strategists". That's like calling a prostitute a "sexual consultant".

Freedomworks is little more than a right-wing lobbying shell.

Another one of its board members:
Ted Abram

 

Every time the Tea Party is winning or getting a one up on the DNC they claim that the Tea Party is dying or fading away....

It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf. Who really believes the DNC anymore. We can obviously see for ourselves what is happening....and it's not fading...

 

Okay and what has he lobbied for in government? Still can't give you that one.

What is it then? What have they lobbied for?

Who is this? Why do you give me names and not tell me they're roll in government or as a lobbyist.

You still only have 1 name.

 

That should be ARE okay.
Not " is okay ".
If you wanna be a good conservative it is imperative to
elucidate in plain english.
Once this is acheived one can kinda screw around with slang,
as I.

 

Dang think she owned you.

 

Ugh I'm just now noticing that the stupid volume indicator was stuck on the screen.

I gotta get better at using computers.

 

Yes, we've seen it all before here. You are only chasing to catch up with what happened in UK politics 20 years ago. Thatcher limited the unions and although she went too far, probably was not completely wrong in doing so as their influence was damaging the economy at that time and something had to be done to stop the disruption.

In your case, your government is being disrupted by the other side. It is they who need limiting.

And I speak objectively, your chaotic politics are impacting on the world economy. I am telling you now, if you don't resolve it, it may well be resolved for you by external forces. I know it is a shock, but US does not really rule the world.

As to killing an idea, I have little issue with your idea. I have issue with the disruption is it causing to the world economy. If you want to vote a different Party into power come the election, that is your right. It's not your right to destabilise a government which the people voted into power. If it were working in the other direction, what would the Tea Party be saying? Excuse me, but do you think they appear so extreme they might want to call it treason?

 

You just have to separate the conservatives from the NeoCons, not all of us from the right are bad.

I would be happy if you just got better at using logic, reasoning, and supporting your opinions with data.

 

Indeed. I think the term "conservative" has been adopted, or perhaps kidnapped, by a bunch of big government Jesus freaks who think that conservative means religious morality on social issues.

Goldwater was a conservative. The current crop of GOP candidates, with the possible exception of Paul, are not conservatives.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

It doesn't matter what you think, because you are allergic to any understanding of the term. It has no value to you other than as a vehicle for sowing discord in the ranks of conservatives.

 

Trust me. I am far closer to a true conservative than any of the social group conservatives around here.

I believe in freedom form government, which includes a woman's right of privacy with her own body, the right to marry any adult who may agree to marry you, the end of huge and bloated military expeditions, and in keeping your religion out of my government.

Something sorely lacking in today's conservatives with their legislating morality and their dominionist policies.

 

Who in Hell do you think you're kidding?

Please, nobody who supports the insanity of "gay marriage" and the mass murder of unborn children is a true anything - other than perhaps a true mental defective.

 

I don't pay him much attention anyway. His posts are just noise.

 

And this proves my point exactly. big government neocons who are hellbent on shoving their religious morality down the throats of America have usurped the term "conservative" and bastardized it into something it was not.

 

As opposed to your gutting and indepth critique coupled with a critical analysis of the geopolitical situation in America that I am quoting here?

Irony and hypocrisy had unprotected intercourse and spawned your post.

 

Big shoveling abortion rights around is okay. Make sense. What exactly is your credibility conservatism again? Another troll? Pretty convincing.

Since I've given you some time you sleep on it, you should be able to tell me why Palin is a politician by now. I've given you about a day.

 

Pure projection, obviously. It's leftards who are Hell bent on bastardizing it, just like the Soviets were Hell bent on bastardizing America itself, through the propaganda which has poisoned the minds of so many Americans that they were content to put an America-hating Marxist in the Oval Office.

 

Insult noted.

I have no interest in watching your posts fail miserably again, nor do I have an interest in aiding your continued off topic journey in the hopes of your post eventually being right as it is certainly wrong currently.

 

You have no credibility = Insult

What a joke.

You couldn't back up your statement so I'm not the one that failed there buddy. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you aid anything. I'm giving you a chance to redeem your sorry excuse for logic. I've already proven everything I need to prove and it only took me a dictionary and a screen shot do to it.

You keep hanging on that "you're wrong" mantra. Maybe it'll actually come true someday.

 

Your doing fine, keep up the good work. You just need to do some tweaking

 

You are a far left liberal and know little about a conservative. So you believe a mother has a right to kill her child.

 

So you have no answer and that was pure liberal talking points

 

Do not diminish the enormity of our present circumstance; if the Tea Party
fades into obscurity as movements past, so too our republic.

They cannot be disregarded today; strengthening their numbers would only strengthen the cause.

Disagree all you wish - reality remains. The theme of the Boston Tea Party has long been used by anti-tax protesters, and our current Tea Party was named intentionally and with purpose to very specific concerns: the drastic increase in government spending, opposition to various forms and degrees of taxation, reduction of debt on local and state levels, budget deficits, and an adherence to a more rigid and common-sense interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Abortion, guns, gays, and global warming are auxiliary issues not just to the Tea Party, but to all of us. If republicans "hit the bricks", there will be no-one left to argue with you. Would that make it easier for you get your way?

The Tea Party, I believe, is intentionally not-organized (as opposed to dis-organized) for fear it may create something of a ruling class within the movement. Considering their staunch opposition to centralized power, this decision appears to be appropriate.

Did the Tea Party not "garner some votes" this past November, Cousin Larry? Seems to me your claim is not rooted in past experience.

If I may point you in the direction of November 2010...

Well, then, if the available selections were: Do you Disapprove, Disapprove, or Not care? I think there may be a bit of bias in that poll

One who advocates the silence of all opposition in favor of the status quo may want to take some kind of note of what country he lives in. Did you remain silent during the Bush presidency? I'll assume that, no, you didn't.

Don't let double standards be your standard.

Oh, don't call them the "TP", you'll just give the left another juvenile witticism to add to their arsenal.

It should be well-known to a man of your eloquence, Mr. Herman, that the Tea Party is not singular in their ideality. A return to Constitutional values is not only a clear objective of the Tea Party, it is inherently synonymous with the issues of taxation that you've chosen, for purely partisan reasons I'm sure, to disassociate.

A man who thinks only for one should surely be able to dedicate a bit more effort to it. The Tea Party is a non-organization of like-minded people. The candidates may hold up a mantle for whatever or whomever they wish, but it does not equate to an endorsement in any offical regard.

You'd stated that the Tea Party had no political influence and alluded to the fact that it would likely fade, and the response was "Sure the Tea Party could easily fade like Nader's Green party however the big difference is the 80 year near historic turning of the Political tides last Fall, under the compound authority of a Tea Party. Proving the Tea Party is a huge Political force to be reckoned with."

How is that irrelevant to your statement?

I would say being Governor of a state and potentially running for president would make her at least somewhat "active" in politics.

Yes, those people are known as "liberals." Kidding! But seriously, if those dulled masses of which you speak would become more aware of the problems we face today, where do you think they might stand? Many on the left and right have accurately speculated that at least some portion of the current Tea Party population consists of the aforementioned once-unaware citizens. Something to consider.

Much less-eager rioters.

Would you consider the above statement to qualify as a "petty insult" that someone might "odd[ly]" "resort to" when a person is "shown to be wrong," as you "clearly were"?

I would argue your point that the goalpost was moved in this instance; the request was for you to answer the same question you'd ignored twice previously. Feel free to copy and paste my answer, or create one of your own - but do address the question.

I rescind my earlier claim. Though Mrs. Palin was formerly a politician and is likely seeking political office in the future, she is not, currently and by definition, a politician. You are incorrect, TFM. I am sorry for your loss.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. What point would it ultimately prove if she were a politician? That she organized Tea Party events? Considering those events were organized during a lengthy hiatus from politics, she cannot by definition be labeled as a political organizer of Tea Party events because said events were organized while she was a private citizen.

Who "rules the world" is, unfortunately and ultimately, determined by military might. Ours is a sleeping behemoth that you'd never, ever want to awaken. We are rightly assumed to be the dominant world superpower because, considering the past 235 years, the rest of the world would rather we didn't have to prove it once again.

Our generation has never encountered the full capacity of U.S. military power - and I hope to Christ almighty we never do.