Left Wing Theft Squads

[pimpdave]

but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

[Phatscotty]

but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

[Iliad]

but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Coming from the pimpdave slanderer of the year.

It's ad hominems all the way down.

[Lootifer]

[Phatscotty]

but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Coming from the pimpdave slanderer of the year.

It's ad hominems all the way down.

slander? Show me

[TA1LGUNN3R]

but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Coming from the pimpdave slanderer of the year.

It's ad hominems all the way down.

slander? Show me

Yeah Iliad! It's libel when in print! lrn2usedefinitions

-TG

[jonesthecurl]

Historically, I understand your post, and while your apology was perhaps historically necessary, I forgive you.

Your use of the term 'historically' here suggests that you don't understand the meaning.

Historically, your response suggests you are being sarcastic. Though in this case that's a big FAIL cause sarcasm must include humor and you fail here.

Maybe you need a historictomy.

[thegreekdog]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

[HapSmo19]

what if they started shitting on police cars?

[thegreekdog]

what if they started shitting on police cars?

I'm indifferent to people shitting on police cars.

[Phatscotty]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Or you could just unlike the brand known as the Tea Party Express, because they a BGCRism. Yes, the co-opt is on, doesn't mean they redefined us though. There will probably by a fight within the Tea Party. Pray we win and they lose. (all the good tea partiers quitting won't help us tho)

[thegreekdog]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Or you could just unlike the brand known as the Tea Party Express, because they a BGCRism. Yes, the co-opt is on, doesn't mean they redefined us though. There will probably by a fight within the Tea Party. Pray we win and they lose. (all the good tea partiers quitting won't help us tho)

I'm going to stick with my own semi-unique brand of Libertarianism. The Tea Party was too easily co-opted.

[Phatscotty]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Or you could just unlike the brand known as the Tea Party Express, because they a BGCRism. Yes, the co-opt is on, doesn't mean they redefined us though. There will probably by a fight within the Tea Party. Pray we win and they lose. (all the good tea partiers quitting won't help us tho)

I'm going to stick with my own semi-unique brand of Libertarianism. The Tea Party was too easily co-opted.

We'll see

[bradleybadly]

If you're gonna rip off pimpdave, at least have the common decency to link to some sort of outrageous thing Obama is theoretically responsible for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act

[notyou2]

Today President Obama, leader of the Left Wing Theft Squad proposed gathering together another populist mob to steal other people's money.

Since when did Obama hire Cheney and Rumsfeld?

[Borderdawg]

Today President Obama, leader of the Left Wing Theft Squad proposed gathering together another populist mob to steal other people's money.

Since when did Obama hire Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Doesn't need them. He has Clinton, Pelosi, Holder, (though maybe not Holder for much longer) and Rahm on standby. Each party has their own set of thieves, thugs, and sycophants, 90% of which aren't worth the cost of the cartridge.

[ViperOverLord]

y'know, they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

-TG

Then again__ Who says it's not just straight up mockery?

I'm going to stick with my own semi-unique brand of Libertarianism. The Tea Party was too easily co-opted.

I pretty much agree. The Tea Party ended up being damage control at best. And soon there after it became a platform for politicians like Palin to push their own agendas. It also became big business for right wing propaganda machines. That is not to say I disagree with the angst of Tea Partiers and all the Tea Bagger talk was just for (often) uneducated haters.

[pimpdave]

[Symmetry]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

I'm a bit tempted to do a tribute to Hitchens and go on a rant, but let's face it, a calm lucid rant is just an argument that you can't deal with.

To be fair, you seem to be asking for more time to work out how to disagree.

What's up Doc?
Sym

[thegreekdog]

Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

I'm a bit tempted to do a tribute to Hitchens and go on a rant, but let's face it, a calm lucid rant is just an argument that you can't deal with.

To be fair, you seem to be asking for more time to work out how to disagree.

What's up Doc?
Sym

What? Again, perhaps you didn't watch the Hitchens video. He discussed, for example, how white Americans are afraid that their country is being taken over by non-white Americans (i.e. the white Americans will be in the minority). I don't believe this is the case and Hitchens can provide no evidence of that. I find his calm and lucid tone to be great, but he's no different than someone from Air American screaming about the same thing. Calmly explaining "racism" with no particular evidence to back up the assertion is no different than shouting "racism" at the top of one's lungs, with no particular evidence to back up the assertion.

I can deal with Hitchens' rant in two ways: (1) Ignore it (which is what I generally do with idiocy, trolling, and intellectual dishonest arguments) or (2) Ask for evidence supporting the position (apart from doctored photos of alleged Tea Party leaders).

As I've said on numerous occasions in this forum, if someone who does not like the Tea Party would like to engage in an intellectually honest discussion of what the Tea Party stands for, I would be happy to do so. Otherwise, all your doing is spewing forth nonsense for soundbite purposes, regardless of whether you're an intelligent and respected journalist speaking calmly.

[pimpdave]

That's impossible because no one in the Tea Party on this forum will be intellectually honest about what the Tea Party stands for.

For example, why does the Tea Party hate people with Parkinsons? I'm sure you'll answer, "No we don't!" And then I'll say, "But I thought you disavowed your allegiance to the Tea Party". And then I'll follow up with "And yes, the Tea Party does"

[thegreekdog]

That's impossible because no one in the Tea Party on this forum will be intellectually honest about what the Tea Party stands for.

For example, why does the Tea Party hate people with Parkinsons? I'm sure you'll answer, "No we don't!" And then I'll say, "But I thought you disavowed your allegiance to the Tea Party". And then I'll follow up with "And yes, the Tea Party does"

Symm - Exhibit A.

And yes, I'm no longer a Tea Party member.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's impossible because no one in the Tea Party on this forum will be intellectually honest about what the Tea Party stands for.

For example, why does the Tea Party hate people with Parkinsons? I'm sure you'll answer, "No we don't!" And then I'll say, "But I thought you disavowed your allegiance to the Tea Party". And then I'll follow up with "And yes, the Tea Party does"

Symm - Exhibit A.

And yes, I'm no longer a Tea Party member.

Their racist contempt for people with Parkinsons got to me too, buddy...

[notyou2]

Apparently, they all love to hate.