(06-27-2013 04:29 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:22 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:01 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Explain yourself. How is wanting the government to live within their means and to respect the Constitution a danger to the economic health of the nation?

The unwillingness to work with others in congress and the various General Assemblies. An inability to compromise or look at the long and short term ramifications of actions they advocate. A failure to see the big picture.

Translation: The Republicans won't give in to every dem demand, just 80% of them, so they are obstructionists or something.

The one thing the left is really good at is the long game. They've been at it for 100 years and their goals are now within reach. It could have never happened without the intentional dumbing down of the people via our educational system.

The right is terrible at the long game. Most of them are just trying to go along to get along and get invited to all the swanky D.C. parties. That and stay elected. Many of them have no principles and so are easily swayed into supporting things that those that elected them detest.

There's a reason that Congress' rating by the people is lower than an earthworm's castings. It is not all just the GOP that causes this reaction.

Tea Party and Republicans are not one and the same. They are a subgroup that has used the Republican party structure but they by no means represent the party as a whole.

They know this, yet still see the two as one entity. Easier to attack that way. It's like how they also think conservative = republican when it obvioulsy does not.

Or Democrat = Socialist when it obviously does not.

(06-27-2013 04:08 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  If your against the tea party then you don't understand what they stand for.

You mean stood for?

Because upon initial formation, they stood for many things I would have gladly accepted and gone along with. But when the Republican party quickly swept them up, used them and spit them out, it was game over.

Talking about stuff you don't understand again.

The GOP tried to co-opt them and lots of fools on your side bought it. When that didn't work, the GOP has tried to marginalize them, demonize them and talk them down because ignoring them hasn't worked.

Man...what a weird poll. Still scratching my head why question 4 even fits in here. What the heck the Tea Party, local militia groups and Occupy have to do with nuclear weapons I'll never know. Anyway...

Quote:1* How important is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to the country’s national security?

2* Should the United States build an anti-missile defense shield?

3* Should the United States reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal?

4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?

5* How likely is it that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons?

(06-27-2013 04:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:01 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Explain yourself. How is wanting the government to live within their means and to respect the Constitution a danger to the economic health of the nation?

The unwillingness to work with others in congress and the various General Assemblies. An inability to compromise or look at the long and short term ramifications of actions they advocate. A failure to see the big picture.

All of those criticisms are applicable to the far left. Every damn one of them.

I wouldn't argue with that statement. However the Tea Party is the extreme political group of the day so they are a greater threat right now.

Wanting the Constitution adhered to and spending controlled is extreme?

To this administration, yes.

Oh, protect us from that terrible Tea Party....
they might have a heart attack and fall on me.

(06-27-2013 04:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Or Democrat = Socialist when it obviously does not.

You have a point but you really should read up. The internet has lots of places where you could look.

Just because dem does not automatically mean socialist, it is the FAR LEFT who is driving the bus right now and the CPUSA and DSA just loves what is happening in the USA and enthusiastically endorsed Obama in 2012. MANY members of Congress are members of socialist organizations and that info can be verified online. Heck, Obama himself was a member of the communist New Party in Chicago in the mid 90s.

Allen West nearly got crucified by the media and leftwing hacks when he pointed out that something like 80 dems in Congress are socialists or communists. He even stated that at that time, you could still find membership lists online on the actual party sites. It is not a secret but the MSM won't ever mention it. And people like you, RWT and Roberta will automatically claim that this is untrue and a smear. Alinsky would be proud.

If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, quacks like a socialist,
spends money like a socialist, passes stupid laws like a socialist,
kisses up to socialists like a socialist...
would call it a socialist.

(06-27-2013 04:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Or Democrat = Socialist when it obviously does not.

You have a point but you really should read up. The internet has lots of places where you could look.

Just because dem does not automatically mean socialist, it is the FAR LEFT who is driving the bus right now and the CPUSA and DSA just loves what is happening in the USA and enthusiastically endorsed Obama in 2012. MANY members of Congress are members of socialist organizations and that info can be verified online. Heck, Obama himself was a member of the communist New Party in Chicago in the mid 90s.

Allen West nearly got crucified by the media and leftwing hacks when he pointed out that something like 80 dems in Congress are socialists or communists. He even stated that at that time, you could still find membership lists online on the actual party sites. It is not a secret but the MSM won't ever mention it. And people like you, RWT and Roberta will automatically claim that this is untrue and a smear. Alinsky would be proud.

If it is on the internet it has to be true.

(06-27-2013 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Man...what a weird poll. Still scratching my head why question 4 even fits in here. What the heck the Tea Party, local militia groups and Occupy have to do with nuclear weapons I'll never know. Anyway...

Quote:1* How important is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to the country’s national security?

2* Should the United States build an anti-missile defense shield?

3* Should the United States reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal?

4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?

5* How likely is it that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons?

If this confuses you, it says more about you than the poll. It appears that most of the Q. you highlighted were about threats to the U.S. In that vein, they wanted to know what the people thought was the biggest threat to the U.S.

When you consider all the rhetoric coming out of DHS from the time Obama got into office - conservatives are a threat, the TP is a threat, returning veterans are a threat, etc. - it makes sense to see what the public believes. Maybe not to you, but it makes sense to me to query public attitudes.

(06-27-2013 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If it is on the internet it has to be true.

So, you trying to tell me that DSA and CPUSA faked their own websites? What would be gained for them by falsely naming members of congress as members of their own organizations?

I'm not naive but you may well be.

(06-27-2013 04:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If it is on the internet it has to be true.

So, you trying to tell me that DSA and CPUSA faked their own websites? What would be gained for them by falsely naming members of congress as members of their own organizations?

I'm not naive but you may well be.

You will need to name names. Who exactly are these members of congress?

(06-27-2013 04:51 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Man...what a weird poll. Still scratching my head why question 4 even fits in here. What the heck the Tea Party, local militia groups and Occupy have to do with nuclear weapons I'll never know. Anyway...

Quote:1* How important is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal to the country’s national security?

2* Should the United States build an anti-missile defense shield?

3* Should the United States reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal?

4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?

5* How likely is it that terrorist groups will soon gain access to nuclear weapons?

If this confuses you, it says more about you than the poll. It appears that most of the Q. you highlighted were about threats to the U.S. In that vein, they wanted to know what the people thought was the biggest threat to the U.S.

When you consider all the rhetoric coming out of DHS from the time Obama got into office - conservatives are a threat, the TP is a threat, returning veterans are a threat, etc. - it makes sense to see what the public believes. Maybe not to you, but it makes sense to me to query public attitudes.

You appear to be the one confused. Those questions WERE the poll. That is all they asked. And there is no reason to ask anyone if the tea party, occupy or local militias are nuclear terrorist threats to this country IMO. That's all.

You won't believe it even if those people told you directly. I don't have the time to do the research right now. You're not motivated enough to even try it. Instead, you'll just cling to your belief that this country's ills are due to the GOP, which is ridiculous because the GOP is too scared to stand up for anything these days. They don't even know what they stand for.

I know that since I made the assertion, I should back it up with links. I don't know yet if the info has been scrubbed or if somebody has archived those pages from a couple of years ago. There was lots of documented scrubbing of websites when Obama first became a candidate.

Truth doesn't matter in the post-American world.

(06-27-2013 04:57 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:54 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If it is on the internet it has to be true.

So, you trying to tell me that DSA and CPUSA faked their own websites? What would be gained for them by falsely naming members of congress as members of their own organizations?

I'm not naive but you may well be.

You will need to name names. Who exactly are these members of congress?

Here's another one you'd be best to just ignore. He's really out there. If I remember this one from awhile back, those sites named a list of lawmakers who they felt might be sympathetic to their cause. And to no one's surprise, most would be democrats/liberals.

Of course in this peon's mind (and the esteemed West) this means they are communists. Anyone wonder why West was a one-term elected official?

(06-27-2013 05:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You appear to be the one confused. Those questions WERE the poll. That is all they asked. And there is no reason to ask anyone if the tea party, occupy or local militias are nuclear terrorist threats to this country IMO. That's all.

They didn't ask if any of those groups were NUCLEAR terrorist threats.

Quote:4*Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today – radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?

When telling others that they are confused, maybe you should be sure of what you are asserting - especially when it is right in front of you and you yourself quoted it.

(06-27-2013 05:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Here's another one you'd be best to just ignore. He's really out there. If I remember this one from awhile back, those sites named a list of lawmakers who they felt might be sympathetic to their cause. And to no one's surprise, most would be democrats/liberals.

Of course in this peon's mind (and the esteemed West) this means they are communists. Anyone wonder why West was a one-term elected official?

You are incorrect. As usual. 'Really out there' to somebody who is a far left supporter. To those who value truth, not so much out there. But we must demonize truth tellers.

The ideology that these folks believe would never win elections. That alone is why they play so fast and loose with the truth and have no problem with ANY method which advances their cause. They have tried to hide their associations for years but now are becoming less worried about it leaking out, because they seem to feel that most of what could have stopped their 'bring America down' agenda has been accomplished and most importantly, Obama was re-elected.

(06-27-2013 05:03 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  You won't believe it even if those people told you directly. I don't have the time to do the research right now. You're not motivated enough to even try it. Instead, you'll just cling to your belief that this country's ills are due to the GOP, which is ridiculous because the GOP is too scared to stand up for anything these days. They don't even know what they stand for.

I know that since I made the assertion, I should back it up with links. I don't know yet if the info has been scrubbed or if somebody has archived those pages from a couple of years ago. There was lots of documented scrubbing of websites when Obama first became a candidate.

Truth doesn't matter in the post-American world.

Where'd you get that pic of Rob? Or was that a self portrait? Nice hat, BTW.



There's an annual contest at the Griffiths University , Australia , calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

The term: 'political correctness'.

The winning student wrote:
'Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of **** by the clean end.'

(06-27-2013 03:47 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Read a Pew survey the other day that said that 76% of us are living paycheck to paycheck. Not a good place to be, esp. in this economy.

Now, Rasmussen released a new survey that is not really a surprise.

Quote:A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups. Two percent (2%) see the Occupy Wall Street movement as the bigger terrorist threat.

However, among those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

As for those who disapprove of Obama’s performance, 75% consider radical Muslims to be the bigger terrorist threat. Just one percent (1%) name the Tea Party.

The big lie theory in action. Repeat it enough times and it gets traction. I'd like to ask one of the buffoons to point to one incident that suggests that the TP is a terrorist threat. Just one. J-Nap and her DHS must be smiling. Their scare tactics worked.

Some interesting answers from the 1%ers, too.

26% of Obama Supporters View Tea Party as Nation's Top Terror Threat

The mere mention of the Tea Party, linking it to terrorism, is an insult to anyone with any sense what so ever.