DC Tom Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 As posted earlier: Why don't you challenge the statements I made in post #201? Tell me why the items I spelled out are not tyrannical. Get specific. Put a little work into it rather than coming up with stupid schit. But...Tea Party! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) So you admit I'm right that the tea party stooges are a corporate backed movement? To answer your question, sure, it would be great if people didn't get sick and need Medicare and Medicare, cutting health care won't make people well though. I wish all those cranky old tea par tiers would refuse health care through Medicare and the VA, heck, I wish they would launch a nationwide hunger strike and stick to it till the end. I wonder what percentage of tea par tiers are getting government funded health care? I'd love it if everyone had a good job and didn't need help, but that has been been, and never will be. I wish Duke power wasn't polluting the streams and rivers of North Carolina so we didn't need to be dependent on the EPA, but we are. medicare is intended for people 65 and over, and as far as I know is not intended for the general population. since its inception, medicaid has always been intended to provide low-income people with access to health care. the takeaway from this statement is that low income americans ALREADY HAVE health coverage WITHOUT needing to resort to a massive industry takeover like Obamacare. anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty already knows that. a more legitimate debate would be on the substance, quality, and eligibility for medicaid. why don't you man-up and give 3rd an honst answer to his question? are you afraid that lack of a substantive answer on your part might mean you don't really know what you're talking about? I'd like to see you step up and make your case. Edited February 17, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 So you admit I'm right that the tea party stooges are a corporate backed movement? To answer your question, sure, it would be great if people didn't get sick and need Medicare and Medicare, cutting health care won't make people well though. I wish all those cranky old tea par tiers would refuse health care through Medicare and the VA, heck, I wish they would launch a nationwide hunger strike and stick to it till the end. I wonder what percentage of tea par tiers are getting government funded health care? I'd love it if everyone had a good job and didn't need help, but that has been been, and never will be. I wish Duke power wasn't polluting the streams and rivers of North Carolina so we didn't need to be dependent on the EPA, but we are. So, we are dependent on the EPA to insure that Duke Power pollutes the streams? In that case maybe we would be better off if the EPA was abolished, eh? You still haven't responded to my post #201 in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Apparently the positions of fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom from a tyrannical government are racist in nature. Wait! You forgot about abortion! And affirmative action! What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the TEA party? LOL................On ABC’s This Week, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel said the Tea Party was “a corporate-hugging, well-funded lobby,” What stuns me is that any literate journalist would cling to the idea that the populist, anti-corporatist Tea Party could be labeled “corporate-hugging.” Or that the editor of something called The Nation would fail to know that progressivism is shot through with corporatism and always has been. Or that a growing horde of conservative activists has read the books and knows this history. Yet more evidence that the left doesn't "know their enemy". It really is hilarious how befuddled they are, and I hope it continues. More about this below. European Tea Party Movements On The March. Uh oh. The rubes are catching on. In the end, Europe always follows our innovations. IF they can really latch on to what the TEA party really is about, which means paying 0 attention to what the liberal media here says, because they don't know, then they can accomplish the same thing we have: befuddle the left. Here's an example of the befuddlement: Biden rants "There is no Republican party, I wish there were" It's no secret that befuddlement is Joe Biden's default position. However, as he has so often: he unintentionally crystalizes the issue. "There is no Republican party" ...that he's used to, because nobody wants to play the tired, old Democratic party "move the R who sits down with us to the front, so that our media allies can attack him, while we say we are trying to work with him" game. Thus, Biden's befuddled. He's befuddled that the same old trick isn't working. But really, ALL of the Ds are, especially the media types like wawrow. They can't understand that their biggest enemy is their own daft perception. Meanwhile, the TEA party continues its tactics, which are working. The TEA party has kept Obamacare in the news, and denied everything else, yet the liberals still don't seem to get how, without having a leader. The TEA party has raised more money than anyone thus far for 2014, with no leader. The TEA party has denied the Ds a vote on immigration, income nonsense, or anything else, with no leader, becasue: The TEA party will see to it that Obamacare is the ONLY issue in 2014. The $ is already raised, and the plan is underway. The is left befuddled, largely becasue again they don't understand how this can be happening. As I've said: they can't seem to recognize an organization that doesn't require a "strong man", and servile loyalty to party. How therefore, can the TEA party continue to succeed, while being so "disorganized"? (Hint: the word you should be focused on is "decentralized", but, asking a progressive to understand decentralization?) The TEA party is predicated on independent thinking, which makes them unpredictable, and while that means mistakes, it also means being elusive and very effective. How innovative, and thus, American of them. The Euros always love American innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Could this be our guy? http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/02/20/sen-rand-paul-restore-voting-rights-to-some-kentucky-ex-cons/?subscriber=1 Sen. Rand Paul urged members of the Kentucky Legislature on Wednesday to restore the voting rights of some nonviolent felons and said it is time for the nation to rethink the "war on drugs" - putting him in the middle of a couple of thorny debates that put him at odds with many traditional conservatives. Time after time, Mr. Paul has marched into policy fights that don't fit neatly into the left-right political paradigm that has dominated national politics for decades. And he has suggested the GOP should follow suit, warning that the national party must reinvent itself if it wants to win back the White House in his lifetime. "The guy is serious about approaching politics from a fundamentally different perspective than establishment Republicans and Democrats," said Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason.com, the largest libertarian news website. The establishments of both parties "are much more about controlling the apparatus of the state - and expanding it - to the benefit of their favored constituencies. Paul seems to be legitimately interested in reducing the size, scope, and spending of government across the board." Mr. Paul, a tea party favorite and son of former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, is among the rising Republican stars jockeying for position ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Since the 2012 election, Mr. Paul has played up the idea that his libertarian brand of Republicanism can improve the party's image - making it more appealing to young and minority voters and that that can help Republicans return to their winning ways in national elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) He's not "playing it up". His father proved that libertarianism is a big winner with younger voters. Ron Paul was too old to mount a serious campaign for the presidency; but he was a phenomenal advocate for his principals, and advanced a libertarian agenda into the center of the political arena. Rand, if he follows closely in his father's footprints, could make the presidential run his father was unable to. Given the attention Chris Christie has paid to Paul on the national stage, I'm inclined to believe that the Establishment agrees with me. Edited February 20, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 He's not "playing it up". His father proved that libertarianism is a big winner with younger voters. Ron Paul was too old to mount a serious campaign for the presidency; but he was a phenomenal advocate for his principals, and advanced a libertarian agenda into the center of the political arena. Rand, if he follows closely in his father's footprints, could make the presidential run his father was unable to. Given the attention Chris Christie has paid to Paul on the national stage, I'm inclined to believe that the Establishment agrees with me. He needs to stay away from the social issues and refer those issues back to the states. In other words when abortion, legalizing pot or gay marriage questions get asked he may state his preference in order to get the conservative or fundamentalist vote, but he must make it very clear that it is a state's issue and not germaine to his presidential run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 He needs to stay away from the social issues and refer those issues back to the states. In other words when abortion, legalizing pot or gay marriage questions get asked he may state his preference in order to get the conservative or fundamentalist vote, but he must make it very clear that it is a state's issue and not germaine to his presidential run. That's exactly what his father did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 He needs to stay away from the social issues and refer those issues back to the states. In other words when abortion, legalizing pot or gay marriage questions get asked he may state his preference in order to get the conservative or fundamentalist vote, but he must make it very clear that it is a state's issue and not germaine to his presidential run. LOL.....it's not always easy to "avoid" it, when its most of what the GOP candidates are asked about by those "impartial" monitors. Remember Georgie ? During Saturday's Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos bizarrely pressed candidate Mitt Romney on whether the former Massachusetts governor believed that states have the right to ban contraception? “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Stephanopoulos asked “George, I don’t know if the state has a right to ban contraception, no state wants to! The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do, that no state wants to do, and then asking me whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing,” Romney responded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Remember Georgie ? Georgie S. lost a lot of credibility once everyone realized he was doing Axelrod's bidding with that off-the-radar out-of-the-blue why-are-you-asking-about-this-topic question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 LOL.....it's not always easy to "avoid" it, when its most of what the GOP candidates are asked about by those "impartial" monitors. Remember Georgie ? During Saturday's Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos bizarrely pressed candidate Mitt Romney on whether the former Massachusetts governor believed that states have the right to ban contraception? “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Stephanopoulos asked “George, I don’t know if the state has a right to ban contraception, no state wants to! The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do, that no state wants to do, and then asking me whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing,” Romney responded My answer would have been: "What does that have to do with my running for president? Ask me something that is not only pertinent but important to the presidency." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 My answer would have been: "What does that have to do with my running for president? Ask me something that is not only pertinent but important to the presidency." Media headline the very next day -- "3rdnlng Refuses To Say He Won't Ban Contraceptives" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 But...Tea Party! that amuses me. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 medicare is intended for people 65 and over, and as far as I know is not intended for the general population. since its inception, medicaid has always been intended to provide low-income people with access to health care. the takeaway from this statement is that low income americans ALREADY HAVE health coverage WITHOUT needing to resort to a massive industry takeover like Obamacare. anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty already knows that. a more legitimate debate would be on the substance, quality, and eligibility for medicaid. why don't you man-up and give 3rd an honst answer to his question? are you afraid that lack of a substantive answer on your part might mean you don't really know what you're talking about? I'd like to see you step up and make your case. poor people already have health care? Really? And how are you surviving these days since the "take over" of health care? Gosh, health care taken over, no religious liberty now that the Arizona freedom bill was vetoed, IRS thugs taking away your free speech rights Ben-By-Gozi showing how Obama is using al quad to murder for him or something...time for you guys to move to a free country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 poor people already have health care? Really? And how are you surviving these days since the "take over" of health care? Gosh, health care taken over, no religious liberty now that the Arizona freedom bill was vetoed, IRS thugs taking away your free speech rights Ben-By-Gozi showing how Obama is using al quad to murder for him or something...time for you guys to move to a free country Good little statist. Still mocking the preventable deaths of four Americans by the WH and State Dept. So predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 poor people already have health care? Really? Yes, it's called Medicaid you dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 poor people already have health care? Really? And how are you surviving these days since the "take over" of health care? Gosh, health care taken over, no religious liberty now that the Arizona freedom bill was vetoed, IRS thugs taking away your free speech rights Ben-By-Gozi showing how Obama is using al quad to murder for him or something...time for you guys to move to a free country Ya know the idea of splitting the country isn't so crazy. I think the righties in such a split would agree to keep and fund the military to protect lefty nation in exchange for the US constitution. You can write your own. Which half of the county do you want, east or west? I'd agree to take whichever half you don't want. Oh, and you get Obama in the deal which should be mighty tempting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 poor people already have health care? Really? For quite some time. It's called "Medicaid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 For quite some time. It's called "Medicaid." ...and the Emergency room. Not saying that's good. It just is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/us/with-vacancies-high-gop-primaries-in-texas-set-up-a-scramble-to-the-right.html?hp Tea Party gone wild in Texas. Gotta love the Ted Nugent influence. What a POS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts