ext_36450 (
underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2011-02-23 04:51 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
A follow up to an earlier post:
So this is what being interested in the deficit and cutting taxes looks like, eh? Seems to me more that the Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-bill-to-ban-all-local-lgbt_23.html
http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/tennessee_islam_law_felony_bill
And can anyone answer me how this remotely is compatible with Lawrence v. Texas? I thought Tea Partiers were also about defending Law and Order and Society As It Is? To me, this is just one of many examples of how the "Tea Party" is nothing but a front for the religious politicians of the Republican Party. Oh, and as to the second article: how does making Shariah Law a felony reduce the deficit and shrink government? I thought Supply-Side was Voodoo Economics, this type of deficit reduction is even harder to understand.
But if we take Tea Partiers at their word, and they are nothing but honest and honorable people, they are always about the deficit. When it's:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
This it's always about the deficit.
When it's advocating that President Obama is not a US citizen, it's always about the deficit, for Tea Partiers are nothing but honest and honorable people and when they say it's all about the deficit, surely we should believe such honest defenders of the US as it is, the Constitution as it was:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/83026/tea-party-birthers-movements-somewhat.html
http://teapartynationalism.com/the-blogbri-news-updates-and-morei/item/131-tea-party-nation-founder-declares-himself-a-birther
When it's condemning something their own children are involved as re-education camps, it's all about the deficit and reducing spending, for Tea Partiers are honorable and honest people, and they would never say anything but honest and honorable things:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmanns-son-joins-group-she-once-called-a-re-education-camp/
So yes, the Tea Party *is* all about the cutting the deficit and less spending, and somehow, in some way these brave champions ofWhite League thuggishness freedom and justice for all will reduce the Federal budget to an entirely balanced and well-founded fiscal base, and belief that the President is not a citizen, that live ammo should be used on strikers, that Shariah law should be a felony, and eliminating all the progress (however slow and halting it's been) for LGBQTI individuals since the 1970s will make the US Budget balanced.
Oh, and it might good to remember who the father of the Tea Party's sugar daddies was:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30065386/Fred-C-Koch-Going-Off-On-A-Bircher-Rant-Newspaper-Clipping-1964
There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-bill-to-ban-all-local-lgbt_23.html
http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/tennessee_islam_law_felony_bill
And can anyone answer me how this remotely is compatible with Lawrence v. Texas? I thought Tea Partiers were also about defending Law and Order and Society As It Is? To me, this is just one of many examples of how the "Tea Party" is nothing but a front for the religious politicians of the Republican Party. Oh, and as to the second article: how does making Shariah Law a felony reduce the deficit and shrink government? I thought Supply-Side was Voodoo Economics, this type of deficit reduction is even harder to understand.
But if we take Tea Partiers at their word, and they are nothing but honest and honorable people, they are always about the deficit. When it's:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
This it's always about the deficit.
When it's advocating that President Obama is not a US citizen, it's always about the deficit, for Tea Partiers are nothing but honest and honorable people and when they say it's all about the deficit, surely we should believe such honest defenders of the US as it is, the Constitution as it was:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/83026/tea-party-birthers-movements-somewhat.html
http://teapartynationalism.com/the-blogbri-news-updates-and-morei/item/131-tea-party-nation-founder-declares-himself-a-birther
When it's condemning something their own children are involved as re-education camps, it's all about the deficit and reducing spending, for Tea Partiers are honorable and honest people, and they would never say anything but honest and honorable things:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmanns-son-joins-group-she-once-called-a-re-education-camp/
So yes, the Tea Party *is* all about the cutting the deficit and less spending, and somehow, in some way these brave champions of
Oh, and it might good to remember who the father of the Tea Party's sugar daddies was:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30065386/Fred-C-Koch-Going-Off-On-A-Bircher-Rant-Newspaper-Clipping-1964
There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.
no subject
Link #2 = Failed to prove that this has any support from any member of the Tea Party. The term Tea Party was never mentioned in either the link
Link #3 = Failed to prove that this guy is even a member of the Tea Parties or that his views are representative of them. In fact once again the words "Tea Party" did not appear in the article. Further it was on his private twitter account where he expressed his personal opinion, he was not speaking in his official capacity as a state employee.
Link #4 = OMFG a link which actually uses the term "Tea Party" Unfortunately once again it fails to show what you claim it shows. See you think it says "All Tea Partiers are raving Birthers" when all it really says is "Birther sentiments are more common with those who generally agree with the Tea Parties". It also does not in any way say or imply that ANY actual Tea Party members consider the issue of where Obama was born tbe be of greater importance than the size and cost of government so you still fail.
Link #5 = Jesus Hallelujah you actually hit the mark. Here is a single actual Tea Party member who actually admits to holding birther views (but even he admits Obama was born in Hawaii) This still does not in any prove your point that The Tea Parties are not really concerned with economic issues and the size of the government because you do realize it is possible for people to believe the completely unrelated things at the same time right?
And sorry but I gotta cut it off right there as I have to run to a HOA meeting.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But this is classic Tea Party Godwin's Law Talking Points right here:
no subject
no subject
Rasilio's a little different. 'Slnger, like the guy who flounced a post or two down, rejects reality when it's convenient for him to do so. Even when reality arguably is just itself, without a liberal or conservative bias.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
You even have a bit of his flair for the hyperbole.
no subject
The man's own words are right out of Glenn Beck's distorted ideas of what unions actually do.
Bill Ketron's policies are also right in line with the rest of the Tea Party's ideas and their fear of Shariah in non-existent Texas Towns. Unlike Glenn Beck I can actually provide inductive reasoning instead of asspulls to justify what I say. Sometimes even deductive reasoning.
no subject
Glenn Beck takes quote-pulls from successive video clips of those belonging to groups he opposes, and forms his theories on them in almost the exact same way that you've been doing here. So if you're actually better at using reasoning, deductive or inductive, than he is, I suggest you start demonstrating it, because the error in rhetorical tactics appear to be identical.
no subject
no subject
I know those people exist. I know others too. Show me something which I can attach actual meaning to.
no subject
no subject
UL, I hope you are more stringent with your critical analysis of evidence when coming to the Historical conclusions that you're so certain about.