The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You say Obama does not represent most liberals because he is too centrist?
Well, then we shall see if liberals vote Obama out in 2012. This should be very interesting.

Vote him out? Please explain. He is being challenged from the right, not the left. Why would anyone that feels Obama is too far right vote for someone to the right of him?

Who would you replace him with?

Do you know how presidential elections work in the US?

Recently I saw two different teabaggers claim they voted Bush out of office. Now I think I know why they believe that.

That was under the assumption that Obama is too centrist for the far left And yes I wanted to know who you libs would replace him with. Since he is too "centrist" for far left, is he too left of regular libs? Or is he just right? Sounds like Goldilocks to me.

Originally posted by ClintK
I will only say this: contracts agreed to under duress have traditionally been held by nearly all courts to be invalid. That's what the Tea Party is doing. Even if the Dems agree, most people who are not ignorant are going to view it as invalid for exactly that reason.

The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. 49 times under REPUBLICAN presidents; 29 under Democrat presidents. I am 55 years old and this is the first time in my life anyone has tried to use the debt ceiling to coerce concessions out of the other party.

I almost hope there is no agreement (though it's going to cost everyone if there isn't), because then maybe people will see what nonsense this is and how destructive the tea baggers are for the country.

This, BTW, is from the U.S. Treasury Department:

www.treasury.gov...

edit on 31-7-2011 by ClintK because: Link

Did not Obama as a Senator oppose raising the debt ceiling? Yes I believe it's been stated here several times. You see, that is the classic "ends justify the means' of the liberal Marxists. They oppose something when it suits them, then turn around and oppose it when they like, depending on what they are trying to achieve.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That was under the assumption that Obama is too centrist for the far left

And yes I wanted to know who you libs would replace him with. Since he is too "centrist" for far left, is he too left of regular libs? Or is he just right? Sounds like Goldilocks to me.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I asked you to explain why you would call me a lib once already. Why would you continue to do it if you do not know why? I explained why I call you a teabagger. I guess it takes some conviction to be able to explain why you use the words you do and it takes cowardly insulting to just toss words around.

I get the assumption but unfortunately the reality is that without a challenger from the left, why would any liberal vote him "out of office" when that would mean they had to vote even more right than Obama? This is how it actually works in the US.

If we brought all the troops home tomorrow,did away with the Energy and Education depts and cut foreign aid to only our friends,the money problems would be over with...and the man in the Big Chair has the power to do all that RIGHT NOW....whats he waiting for?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ClintK
I will only say this: contracts agreed to under duress have traditionally been held by nearly all courts to be invalid. That's what the Tea Party is doing. Even if the Dems agree, most people who are not ignorant are going to view it as invalid for exactly that reason.

The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. 49 times under REPUBLICAN presidents; 29 under Democrat presidents. I am 55 years old and this is the first time in my life anyone has tried to use the debt ceiling to coerce concessions out of the other party.

I almost hope there is no agreement (though it's going to cost everyone if there isn't), because then maybe people will see what nonsense this is and how destructive the tea baggers are for the country.

This, BTW, is from the U.S. Treasury Department:

www.treasury.gov...

edit on 31-7-2011 by ClintK because: Link

Did not Obama as a Senator oppose raising the debt ceiling? Yes I believe it's been stated here several times. You see, that is the classic "ends justify the means' of the liberal Marxists. They oppose something when it suits them, then turn around and oppose it when they like, depending on what they are trying to achieve.

It DOESN'T matter that Obama once opposed raising the debt ceiling. Nearly every time the debt ceiling was raised SOMEBODY, usually several people, opposed it simply as a statement when there was no possibility that it wasn't going to be raised. This is a totally different situation which, evidently, you're incapable of seeing. Read my link.

And this frequent use of the term "Marxist" evidently thrills you but you clearly don't know what a "Marxist" actually is. Read "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. Then you'll understand what a Marxist actually is.

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That was under the assumption that Obama is too centrist for the far left

And yes I wanted to know who you libs would replace him with. Since he is too "centrist" for far left, is he too left of regular libs? Or is he just right? Sounds like Goldilocks to me.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I asked you to explain why you would call me a lib once already. Why would you continue to do it if you do not know why? I explained why I call you a teabagger. I guess it takes some conviction to be able to explain why you use the words you do and it takes cowardly insulting to just toss words around.

I get the assumption but unfortunately the reality is that without a challenger from the left, why would any liberal vote him "out of office" when that would mean they had to vote even more right than Obama? This is how it actually works in the US.

Ok so calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers, a derogatory gay term denoting explicit sexual acts is ok by you, and you are offended to be called a lib? Are you or are you not left of Obama? Or are you Right of Obama? I bet you and Obama mostly on par, or you are left of what you think he is. But I will be observing your posts as I see them to see where you truly stand on the issues.
So you can't find anybody more left than Obama to vote for? That's truly hilarious.

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ClintK
I will only say this: contracts agreed to under duress have traditionally been held by nearly all courts to be invalid. That's what the Tea Party is doing. Even if the Dems agree, most people who are not ignorant are going to view it as invalid for exactly that reason.

The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. 49 times under REPUBLICAN presidents; 29 under Democrat presidents. I am 55 years old and this is the first time in my life anyone has tried to use the debt ceiling to coerce concessions out of the other party.

I almost hope there is no agreement (though it's going to cost everyone if there isn't), because then maybe people will see what nonsense this is and how destructive the tea baggers are for the country.

This, BTW, is from the U.S. Treasury Department:

www.treasury.gov...

edit on 31-7-2011 by ClintK because: Link

Did not Obama as a Senator oppose raising the debt ceiling? Yes I believe it's been stated here several times. You see, that is the classic "ends justify the means' of the liberal Marxists. They oppose something when it suits them, then turn around and oppose it when they like, depending on what they are trying to achieve.

It DOESN'T matter that Obama once opposed raising the debt ceiling. Nearly every time the debt ceiling was raised SOMEBODY, usually several people, opposed it simply as a statement when there was no possibility that it wasn't going to be raised. This is a totally different situation which, evidently, you're incapable of seeing. Read my link.

And this frequent use of the term "Marxist" evidently thrills you but you clearly don't know what a "Marxist" actually is. Read "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. Then you'll understand what a Marxist actually is.

Marxism does not thrill me by any means. I assure you I pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain when people try to tell me to study Marxism so that I know what it means. LOLOLOL

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That was under the assumption that Obama is too centrist for the far left

And yes I wanted to know who you libs would replace him with. Since he is too "centrist" for far left, is he too left of regular libs? Or is he just right? Sounds like Goldilocks to me.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I asked you to explain why you would call me a lib once already. Why would you continue to do it if you do not know why? I explained why I call you a teabagger. I guess it takes some conviction to be able to explain why you use the words you do and it takes cowardly insulting to just toss words around.

I get the assumption but unfortunately the reality is that without a challenger from the left, why would any liberal vote him "out of office" when that would mean they had to vote even more right than Obama? This is how it actually works in the US.

Ok so calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers, a derogatory gay term denoting explicit sexual acts is ok by you, and you are offended to be called a lib? Are you or are you not left of Obama? Or are you Right of Obama? I bet you and Obama mostly on par, or you are left of what you think he is. But I will be observing your posts as I see them to see where you truly stand on the issues.
So you can't find anybody more left than Obama to vote for? That's truly hilarious.

FYI, "tea baggers" are what the people who now call themselves the "Tea Party" originally called themselves.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ClintK
I will only say this: contracts agreed to under duress have traditionally been held by nearly all courts to be invalid. That's what the Tea Party is doing. Even if the Dems agree, most people who are not ignorant are going to view it as invalid for exactly that reason.

The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. 49 times under REPUBLICAN presidents; 29 under Democrat presidents. I am 55 years old and this is the first time in my life anyone has tried to use the debt ceiling to coerce concessions out of the other party.

I almost hope there is no agreement (though it's going to cost everyone if there isn't), because then maybe people will see what nonsense this is and how destructive the tea baggers are for the country.

This, BTW, is from the U.S. Treasury Department:

www.treasury.gov...

edit on 31-7-2011 by ClintK because: Link

Did not Obama as a Senator oppose raising the debt ceiling? Yes I believe it's been stated here several times. You see, that is the classic "ends justify the means' of the liberal Marxists. They oppose something when it suits them, then turn around and oppose it when they like, depending on what they are trying to achieve.

It DOESN'T matter that Obama once opposed raising the debt ceiling. Nearly every time the debt ceiling was raised SOMEBODY, usually several people, opposed it simply as a statement when there was no possibility that it wasn't going to be raised. This is a totally different situation which, evidently, you're incapable of seeing. Read my link.

And this frequent use of the term "Marxist" evidently thrills you but you clearly don't know what a "Marxist" actually is. Read "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. Then you'll understand what a Marxist actually is.

Marxism does not thrill me by any means. I assure you I pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain when people try to tell me to study Marxism so that I know what it means. LOLOLOL

Great. Then you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Okay. It's not a surprise.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok so calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers, a derogatory gay term denoting explicit sexual acts is ok by you, and you are offended to be called a lib?

I never said I was offended. I asked you to explain why you toss that word at me. I am not what you call a liberal. You said you were a teabagger. If the name is so offensive, they never should have adopted it themselves to begin with. I never identified as a liberal. I specifically asked you what makes me one in your eyes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/370f36c40928.png[/atsimg]

Can you not explain why you use the words you do? I can.

Are you or are you not left of Obama? Or are you Right of Obama? I bet you and Obama mostly on par, or you are left of what you think he is. But I will be observing your posts as I see them to see where you truly stand on the issues.
So you can't find anybody more left than Obama to vote for? That's truly hilarious.

Your world sounds very black and white and that must be why you are so quick to adopt a label and join a group of like minded individuals. I consider myself a lot less sheeplike. I do not call myself stupid labels just belong to part of a group.

Now, can you tell me why you call me a liberal at all?

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That was under the assumption that Obama is too centrist for the far left

And yes I wanted to know who you libs would replace him with. Since he is too "centrist" for far left, is he too left of regular libs? Or is he just right? Sounds like Goldilocks to me.

edit on 31-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I asked you to explain why you would call me a lib once already. Why would you continue to do it if you do not know why? I explained why I call you a teabagger. I guess it takes some conviction to be able to explain why you use the words you do and it takes cowardly insulting to just toss words around.

I get the assumption but unfortunately the reality is that without a challenger from the left, why would any liberal vote him "out of office" when that would mean they had to vote even more right than Obama? This is how it actually works in the US.

Ok so calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers, a derogatory gay term denoting explicit sexual acts is ok by you, and you are offended to be called a lib? Are you or are you not left of Obama? Or are you Right of Obama? I bet you and Obama mostly on par, or you are left of what you think he is. But I will be observing your posts as I see them to see where you truly stand on the issues.
So you can't find anybody more left than Obama to vote for? That's truly hilarious.

FYI, "tea baggers" are what the people who now call themselves the "Tea Party" originally called themselves.

No, that was when they were naive about the term as a gay sex act. They were "enlightened" by Anderson Cooper. remember?

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok so calling Tea Partiers Tea Baggers, a derogatory gay term denoting explicit sexual acts is ok by you, and you are offended to be called a lib?

I never said I was offended. I asked you to explain why you toss that word at me. I am not what you call a liberal. You said you were a teabagger. If the name is so offensive, they never should have adopted it themselves to begin with. I never identified as a liberal. I specifically asked you what makes me one in your eyes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/370f36c40928.png[/atsimg]

Can you not explain why you use the words you do? I can.

Are you or are you not left of Obama? Or are you Right of Obama? I bet you and Obama mostly on par, or you are left of what you think he is. But I will be observing your posts as I see them to see where you truly stand on the issues.
So you can't find anybody more left than Obama to vote for? That's truly hilarious.

Your world sounds very black and white and that must be why you are so quick to adopt a label and join a group of like minded individuals. I consider myself a lot less sheeplike. I do not call myself stupid labels just belong to part of a group.

Now, can you tell me why you call me a liberal at all?

edit on 31-7-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)

First, I never said I was a teabagger, YOU said it and you know very well you did. I called myself a Tea Partier, and even more a Tea Party PATRIOT!!!!!!! I have never addressed myself with that gay term. but I must admit it was a fairly new term to me a couple short years ago. Most Tea Partiers are not real privvy to such things. Are we just too vanilla for you? Your hatred and contempt is so obvious.
But whatever, I really do not care. Yo have shown that you have zero merit to any of your arguments.

reply to post by Undertough


Don't even go there with the "Sheeple' label. See you are labeling now. And you don't know me at all. I was studying Antony Sutton since 1980. So pullease let me know if you knew about the NWO then.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

I said that a smaller government is a good thing, but it needs to come about in a more gradual process. The large government didn't happen overnight, and a small government can't happen overnight either. The tea party doesn't get that, and making the large scale changes to the governement, which they're pushing for, will only cause further disarray of the american economy.

We (I and many other Americans) tried it your way for years and watched the government grow and grow and grow and spend and spend and spend. NO MORE! It is time to yank the blasted credit card from Congress and tell them to get out the red pen and start slashing the PORK!

You want to grow the economy???

Get rid of the %$#@# Bureaucrats! They produce nothing and only CONSUME money and jobs worse then any welfare mother ever did! (Get rid of the free trade treaties and Fractional Reserve Banking too)

Want PROOF???

Small businesses losing out to red tape

... you would think cities and states would be overjoyed when someone was willing to open up a new business, bringing with him jobs, economic vitality and tax revenues. You might think that, but you'd be wrong.

Instead, cities and states stifle new small businesses at every turn, burying them in mounds of paperwork; lengthy, expensive and arbitrary permitting processes; pointless educational requirements for occupations; or even just outright bans.

Today, the Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship in eight cities. In every city studied, overwhelming regulations destroyed or crippled would-be businesses at a time when they are most needed.

... reports document how local bureaucrats believe they should dictate every aspect of a person's small business. ... And if that means that businesses fail, or never open, or can operate only illegally, or waste all their money trying to get permits so they have nothing left for actual operations, that's just too bad...


Along the way, the dreams of individuals are repeatedly crushed:

•In Chicago, Esmeralda Rodriguez tried to open a children's play center, paying rent month after month while she waited in vain for the government permits she needed to open her business...


•Los Angeles places enormous and pointless restrictions on home-based business.... in Los Angeles, they had better make sure they don't use their garage, manufacture or sell any products, advertise or violate any of the other myriad laws. Many businesses end up operating illegally, scared to grow their business for fear that the next knock on the door could be a regulator.

•In Miami, an accidental loophole in state law allowed jitney van transportation services... soon as Miami-Dade County...t shut down the new jitneys and ensured no others would open by requiring any new business to prove it wouldn't hurt its competitors. It even allowed those competitors to object to any new businesses....


•In Newark, several long-term businesses just managed to escape destruction. The city tried to use eminent domain to remove one of the few thriving business areas....

•Philadelphia's permitting and licensing codes are difficult enough in themselves, but city officials often seem hellbent on treating the system as a perverse game designed to punish honest enterprise...

•In Washington, D.C., hundreds of people have waited more than a year to take the required class and test to become a taxi driver. Rather than encourage these individuals to create jobs for themselves, the city has simply stopped offering the class and test.

When governments actually get rid of barriers to entrepreneurship, new businesses open almost immediately. Indeed, removing even a single law can unleash entrepreneurial energy and create hundreds of jobs....


America was once known as the Land of Opportunity. It could be again, but not until [FEDERAL,] state and local officials get out of the way of entrepreneurs trying to fulfill their dreams of new business and new prosperity for themselves and their families.

www.usatoday.com...

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

Small firms:

* Employ just over half of all private sector employees....

* Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

* Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

* Hire 40 percent of high tech workers....

* .... produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

* Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.
www.sba.gov...

Free the entrepreneurs trying to fulfill their dreams from stifling red tape and you will what this country recover - FAST.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Interesting, But this is a specious analogy on a number of levels.

Monetary wealth doesn't necessarily translate into political power. Look at the rise of the Soviet Union to see how that worked over there for the "rich".

Tea Party members aren't exactly what I would categorize as the most wealthiest people in the country. They participate at political events and actually do something for campaigns (i.e. petition, lit drops, poll work, etc). The "rich" just show up, maybe write a check if they're inclined and then go home.

reply to post by Jezus

If you do some research you will find the "grass roots" claims are completely fabricated.

ERRRRrrrr,

I was part of the base group before the word "Tea Party" was ever even coined! That was several years ago.

Is TPTB trying to grab control or sideline them? OF COURSE! What the heck did you expect? For them to say "OH, sorry, will give back all the money and power we stole"???

But the grass roots groups have been around since before the 2008 election, here are some I have had "dealings with"
nonais.org...
naissucks.com...
Naisinfocentral
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
farmwars.info...
www.grannywarriors.com...
stopanimalid.org...
www.r-calfusa.com...

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



FYI, "tea baggers" are what the people who now call themselves the "Tea Party" originally called themselves.

Where in the world did you get that notion from that the tea tax enough already party called themselvs teabagers. Do you have a link proving this outragious acuzation?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Do you just spew stuff about 'liberal socialist marxists' anytime you respond to anyone, or are your responses ever topical?

reply to post by debunky

Personally i would like to know why you do not want the debt ceiling increased. No seriously, give me one reason why.

Here is my reason: First read this ARTICLE and this ARTICLE

Then look at the graph. The World Trade Organization was signed by Clinton in 1995. Negative numbers means as a country we buy more than we sell.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e419473c7f7b.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by inforeal





Well what do you expect? They are a Front Group for the NWO after all.