Exclusive - The Vetting - Barack Obama, the First Tea Partier

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
I don't think a child has a comprehension level like I do...So I would re-phrase that if I were you...

In matter of fact don't re-phrase that, I know your comprehension as it is already...

edit on 25-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

Further proving that the facts just confuse and upset you. Oh well. I will wait for someone else from your side to come along and make some sense when they post. Thanks for trying though. Does not look like you tried too hard so I guess its ok.

Putting on a colonial wardrobe and parading around on Independence Day is the start of the tea party?

That's like saying the opening scene from 'The Music Man' is the first Rap song.

And by the way, being called a tea #snip# in my neck of the woods infers a other definition.

You gotta go WAY back....

Since 1773

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You have not written a post in a while that had anything in it worth reading. Please move along if all you want is someone to chat with. That is not me. Did you forget where you were? What you were posting? How about the facts you replied to just one page back? The rest of us can see it. I am not going to waste any more time reading any more of your off topic lonely hearts letters.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


I did not respond to you like I said I would not respond to you so you are sending me private messages to harass me? WTF kind of website is this? I was severely mislead about this place.

DO NOT SEND ME PRIVATE HARASSING MESSAGES BECAUSE I AM IGNORING YOU IN A THREAD OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.

reply to post by muse7


Yes, in fact a strong military is provided for in the Founding documents. However, that is not to say that T Party approves of every single war the Elite get us involved with. I haven't supported any of these outrageous wars, not Clintons "Good War" and not Obama's Libyan war and not Bush's Iraq war. That does not mean I don't believe in a strong America. I would prefer we got in less skirmishes. But there is no reason for Obama to give the Soviets the advantage in the START treaty. There is no reason at all for most of the nonsense Barack announced when he said he would "not weaponize space" and so on. I cannot believe how naive and Utopian he is. Or is he really naive? I wonder...

reply to post by Autumnal


So what I sent you a PM, you gonna cry about it to get brownie points what did it say?...I care less if you post it...I guarantee it is still within the standards...Cry more you big baby...

Its still Spring, Autumn ain't till September...Come back then...

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by jibeho

 

I don't see the irony. Obama dressing up in old clothing for a parade has nothing to do with the current tea party.

It's totally hilarious considering the remarks he and Janet Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi made about the Tea Party movement. Also considering he refused to wear the flag lapel pin. Or put his hand over his heart for the National Anthem. Do you really not see the whole irony in all this?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jibeho

 

He looks good in the uniform. He is most certainly a Chameleon who changes colors at the drop of a hat. Or should I say a typical politician.

Yes, he does actually, quite handsome in that uniform. Looks deceive. For a moment I mistook him as Denzel Washington who is also quite handsome in a uniform.

reply to post by Autumnal


haha he sent me private messages too

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Yes, in fact a strong military is provided for in the Founding documents.

I am not quite sure about this. If we are to include the Federalist Papers than we must include the Anit-Federalist Papers as being Founding documents.

The contentions were between the worry about a standing army possibly being problematic and dangerous at the time. Carrying over from their European roots, who can deny their apprehensiveness on the issue? But in Federalist 46, Madison helps the argument along and providing a sound compromise that regardless of the Army that Congress raises, it would never match the militias that the States could produce.

Or course, this was severely tested during the Civil War; but I do not think we could compare to today and States' resources available as opposed to the the late 1800's.

But to state there is "strong" support for a standing army, is cherry-picking for your argument in my opinion. While the Constitution does provide for the means for a standing army, it must be validated every 2-years. Sadly, it has become a political leper in terms of those that seek to reduce portions and anything under the sun is attached to such a bill under the guise of "its for the troops"; using clarion calls such as "remember Vietnam" and "national security".

I digressed a bit, but felt that your statement wasn't quite accurate. Open for discussion of course maybe in a more appropriate thread.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Post it...Let the whole world know...Are you really well spoke? Or are you just playing the part?

Here let me post it for you....

You are really well spoke, but maybe you should think before you speak..... Don't add anything else, because that is what I sent you...

What is with posters recently requesting others to not post?! This is the second thread I have seen such calls. People have varying views, opinions and stances on issues and it seems that the administrators only care when things get "out of control" to lay down the pillow hammer.

I leave you with a quote from John Stuart Mills (whom I cannot agree with his politics, but this is spot on....)

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

It seems there are some here on ATS who are willing to be that "one" man who believes they can silence everyone because of differing opinions. Maybe I don't know the context, but if you have a beef, keep it private and posting back and forth within the thread just is childish.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


lol, calm down

reply to post by Autumnal


Simple eh?? Perhaps we should delve into the complexities of your personality.... Here's a thought, how about creating some of your own threads instead of descending into others in an effort to pick apart individual posts throughout the thread. Your behavior is familiar and predictable.

Creating threads is easy. Don't be shy about it. Let's learn about Autumnal...

reply to post by jibeho

I'll explain the humor as soon as I figure out the hours of endless "#snip#" jokes that floated around for months and months. Perhaps you can just understand the irony...

That's some funny !@#$ Obama in a tricorn...I couldn't make it up if I tried.

It is funny, guess the supporters lost their sense of humor, at the ballot box.

BTW supporters, no one is suggesting he started the tea party,

sheeese

reply to post by Stormdancer777

BTW supporters, no one is suggesting he started the tea party,

Your right, but he started the ##SNIPPED## party which is a sexual innuendo...How is this acceptable?

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

BTW supporters, no one is suggesting he started the tea party,

Your right, but he started the ##SNIPPED## party which is a sexual innuendo...How is this acceptable?

It is not acceptable,

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, in fact a strong military is provided for in the Founding documents.

You're wrong. The founding documents did not call for a strong military, only for state militias. It was the weakness and inherent conflicts in the Articles of Confederation that caused the Federalists to demand rewriting the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not have the power to levy a draft, did not establish a professional military, and provided no means to pay for one. The militia's provided the 2nd best option, a civilian militia buying and maintaining their own firearms.