B-Man Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The Tea Party arose in the wake of the massive TARP bailout of banks with taxpayer money during the 2008 financial crisis, followed by the drive to stop passage of the gargantuan ObamaCare Bill. Tea Party organizations sprung up spontaneously across the nation, without national leadership or controls, and with the twin goals of less spending and restoring the limits of the U.S. Constitution. Though the Republican Party establishment tried to co-opt Tea Party leadership, and the grassroots effort was labeled “Astroturf” by sarcastic Democrats, the Tea Party grassroots unleashed their fury on bailout Republicans in 2010 and 2012 as often as upon Democrats. Bailout Republican Senators Bob Bennett of Utah and Richard Lugar of Indiana were given their electoral pink slips in the GOP primary, as were many in the House of Representatives. Others faced tough primary contests. While establishment Republicans counseled voters to vote “bailout Republicans” back into office, and warned that the Tea Party could create a Democratic Party wave, the reverse happened. The GOP experienced a near-record swing of new seats in the House elections of 2010, and largely held on to those seats in 2012. It is clear that the constitutionalist movement in Congress has been growing, and has increased energy going into the 2014 midterm elections. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 it seems to me that most TEA party people are philosophically aligned with both the original Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats, two sets of ideals that are the greatest pillars in both the founding and subsequent prosperity of the nation. those values are only radical to socialists, communists, totalitarians, fascists, or loyalists to the crown. and morons. I've read enough Tea Party platforms and the ones I've read all make it clear that they are not coming down on the side of any social issues. They are specific about that. They are all about fiscal responsibility, adherence to the constitution and smaller government that is committed to doing what they were set up to do. The dumbasses here who keep trying to make them something they are not are just plain ignorant. BF4E is one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) You continue to take another step up the ladder of stupidity with every post. i took the first step and missed the whole first rung. wouldn't have been the first one. but thank goodness that's a motto of mine you've picked up on. jw Whatever, here's reality: The TEA party has every intention of preventing people like yourself, from imposing their unpopular views on the rest of us. That's because the TEA party is about liberty, and you are clearly about tryanny. (IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, NSA, Fast and Furious, Global Warming, Fiat currency, Detroit Bondholders Robbery, we can do this list for an hour) You thought you knew better. You've proven: you do not. That's what you should be worried about. The widely held default position of "well, yeah, but the Dems are usually smarter about most domestic stuff"? That's now gone. The left has now completely blown an advantage they've held since Clinton. The TEA party is about live/let live. You are about F'ing with people's choices, when and if you let them have any, because you say you know better. The empirical evidence we now have: you're incompetent. The TEA party doesn't want to impose anything but liberty. And that, by definition, is no imposition at all. Obamacare is the #1 target, because Obamacare has never ever been supported by a majority of Americans. Who is doing the imposing, and who is defending liberty here? That's the question you should be asking yourself. Obamacare has always been correctly framed, by the TEA party, as an imposition. That IS the context in which it's being discussed today(TEA party win). It's also #1 because it's so simple to understand. Even the coalition of the dumb that this President has formed, largely gets it. But, you won't ask this question because: you thought it was hilarious when Obama told people "they can come along, but they have to sit in the back and keep quiet", ddn't you? How hilarious is that looking now, when idiots like yourself wholly own Obamacare, and idiots like me can excoriate you endlessly for fun and profit because of it? No, no John, now you NEED the Rs in both houses to come to your rescue. Think how fun that's going to be if the Rs win the Senate. Every progressive must learn a new trick: begging. That's right, you have to beg the Rs to help you, but really? You will have to beg the TEA party to support you making changes to this abomination of a law. Yeah, that's the way this works now: you have to beg the TEA party. I suggest a whole lot of humility and accountability on your part, and an appeal to their patriotism. However, I doubt you can get past the first part. so you agree that you are a hypocrite? oddly, i've not mentioned my views here for or against obamacare. but since you ask, i don't think it goes far enough. so chew on that one. as for suggesting they are "my" dems, not sure where that comes from. i've expressed no support for the democrats. i've not called you a blowhard, but surely that's starting to come into the equation given this post. jw Edited February 6, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Can you show us where, specifically, some people here have made this point that Tea Party folks believe they're the first political movement? Also, specifically what have they been trying to impose on the populace against their will? We'll wait. somehow i think you miss the point of my post. i make no suggestion that they are the first. i instead posit that, and i quote, "the first political movement in the history of politics trying to convince everyone it has no intention of imposing its will, while still attempting to impose its will on the populace whether the populace likes it or not." somehow, i'm not sure how you miss the distinction. of course, i'm wrong. most reform movements have made the claim that they aren't attempting to impose their will on the populace while actually attempting to do the same. so you caught me there. as for your other question, there is no evidence beyond the Tea Party itself that suggests it is gaining in popularity. in fact, cases can be made that it has long past reached its peak of popularity as a pure movement and it may well be time to trim the the hard-headed ham for the sake of the conservative movement's future. though what some of the tea party stands for in regards to taxation and overspending very much has a firm place in the discussion, the inability for compromise is what's holding it back in a nation that's traditionally pointed a little right of center, and avoids extremes. it's the extremes in which the constitution was written to guard against, the fascists and imperialists and kings. to suggest that the tea party refuses to impose its well is to say inaction is not action. and that's physically impossible. but the tea party, by its platform, demands action in politicking against the policies it is against, and suggesting it knows better than those who support those policies. oddly enough, there are those who support universal health care -- nixon was one of them -- and unions and a level of protection for the unprotected. to do away with, as the tea party hardliners suggest, is an attempt to impose their will against those who believe in these common principles. some fail to see this distinction. some fail to have a conversation in which give and take and compromise comprise discussion. i certainly hope you're not that. if so, i'll say you're right, and shake my head. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 so you agree that you are a hypocrite? oddly, i've not mentioned my views here for or against obamacare. but since you ask, i don't think it goes far enough. so chew on that one. as for suggesting they are "my" dems, not sure where that comes from. i've expressed no support for the democrats. i've not called you a blowhard, but surely that's starting to come into the equation given this post. jw Well, wawrow, given the Obamacare fiasco, explain to me how asking for moresaying you wanted more...doesn't make you look like a complete idiot. See, you still don't understand: neither the TEA party, nor I need chew on anything, Obamacare is your poop, and you made it all by yourself, and now, you have to eat it all by yourself. But, not before I rub your nose in it first...to punish you for taking a crap on the country where we both have to live every day. Call me whatever you want: you still have to eat your own schit, or, beg the TEA party for mercy, take responsibility for your errors, and ask for help to fix it. Barring alien invasion, those are your only 2 choices. Since the former seems to be the only choice you are capable of making, want me to make a nice bed of rice for you? Some sauteed vegetables on the side? How about I buy you a nice....well, hmmm what pairs with wawrow/Obamacare poop? Cab maybe? Reisling? Perhaps we'll be adventurous and just go with both? Blowhard? Hypocrite? I'm not the one who was running around shouting "We have to pass it to see what's in it", and, I'm not the one running around now either saying "I dont know why it failed" (Nancy Pelosi - House Minority leader). There's your blowhard. Or, "the President made promises he has to keep"....when only a year ago, I was saying "If you like your plan you can keep it" (Senator Mary Landrieu LA) There's your hypocrite. No sir, I'm neither. I've been making the same, fact-based, measured argument about Obamcare for the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Well, wawrow, given the Obamacare fiasco, explain to me how asking for moresaying you wanted more...doesn't make you look like a complete idiot. See, you still don't understand: neither the TEA party, nor I need chew on anything, Obamacare is your poop, and you made it all by yourself, and now, you have to eat it all by yourself. But, not before I rub your nose in it first...to punish you for taking a crap on the country where we both have to live every day. Call me whatever you want: you still have to eat your own schit, or, beg the TEA party for mercy, take responsibility for your errors, and ask for help to fix it. Barring alien invasion, those are your only 2 choices. Since the former seems to be the only choice you are capable of making, want me to make a nice bed of rice for you? Some sauteed vegetables on the side? How about I buy you a nice....well, hmmm what pairs with wawrow/Obamacare poop? Cab maybe? Reisling? Perhaps we'll be adventurous and just go with both? Blowhard? Hypocrite? I'm not the one who was running around shouting "We have to pass it to see what's in it", and, I'm not the one running around now either saying "I dont know why it failed" (Nancy Pelosi - House Minority leader). There's your blowhard. Or, "the President made promises he has to keep"....when only a year ago, I was saying "If you like your plan you can keep it" (Senator Mary Landrieu LA) There's your hypocrite. No sir, I'm neither. I've been making the same, fact-based, measured argument about Obamcare for the last 5 years. no, actually, the tea party has helped make it poop by watering down what it was intended to be, and then rallying against it to the point it had a very good chance at failing. no different than what the democrats did with several Bush-led movements. that said, the online launching of obamacare was a fiaso. and yet, the tea party types were so entrenched against obamacare that they missed the boat on criticizing the launching of obamacare by shutting down the government. geez, what a lost opportunity. the tea party's argument could have had more resonance had it not muffed this punt. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) it's the extremes in which the constitution was written to guard against, the fascists and imperialists and kings. Of course the framers couldn't have know about them(as they couldn't have kown about fascists, you idiot) but the Constitution is there to protect us from socialists and Communists as well. Especially since Communism is the leading cause of murder, historically. The TEA party sees fascism no differently than Communism: both are leftist ideas. One imposes socialism and then glorifies the nation, and requires everyone to put aside their individaul well-being, liberty, and interests to serve the nation. (Fascisim) The other imposes socalism, and then falsely glorifies the worker, while actually making thse in charge in to Feudal lords. (Socialism/Communism) Really they both end the same way: Feudalism. Neither has anything to do wth American values. Neither has ever worked anywhere it's been tried. European socialism is falling apart right in front of their smug noses. The TEA party rejects all of this. Liberty is the only value, and if you are for restricting liberty, for the sake of your nationalized whatever....prepare to be tarred and feathered. If people want to freely engage in pooling their resources, the TEA party has no issue with that. However, forcing us into collectivism, is ALWAYS wrong. What the TEA party sees happening in this country: an evil deal between government and corporations, by which yet again, Fedalism will be imposed. Feudalism as in: what will happen to me if I started my own, non-Obamacare, health care delivery system ....without being assigned my fief, and having taken my vow of vassalage to government or health insurance companies, first? Think I will get audited? Think I will get arrested? Think I will get taxed/regulated to death? Think I will get sued/court injuctioned to death? YEP! to suggest that the tea party refuses to impose its well is to say inaction is not action. and that's physically impossible. but the tea party, by its platform, demands action in politicking against the policies it is against, and suggesting it knows better than those who support those policies. You really don't get it. Doing nothing at all, can be purposeful: inaction. You will see this defined for you when the Ds start begging the TEA party for help with Obamacare: purposeful inaction. And, given the composition of the TEA party(more educated, more successful, smarter, more generous, more likely to volunteer) when compared to the Democratic party, and given your results since 2006, when we just had to elect a D house, "because there was so much to do"(yet we still don't have, to this day, a coherent energy policy, which was promise #1)? The TEA party is 100% justified in saying they know better than you. Wawrow: most of the people in this thread know better than you, on just about everything. I don't remember the last time you wrote anything, example above, that didn't have some glaring factual error. Therefore, the TEA party knows better than you, for sure. I think if we started going through the list, the TEA party knows better than 98? 97?% of the entire Democratic party. What you and others don't seem to realize: the TEA party is really a mature form of libertarian. The libertarian party is growing my friend, and is accepting all the millenials that have just realized Obama/Democrats are a fraud. Things have changed, yet most "progressives" are resisting the change. It's exactly like: you are still thinking in terms of the cold war, but 9/11 just happened(Obamacare). Your old thinking is preventing you from seeing what is happening today Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) no, actually, the tea party has helped make it poop by watering down what it was intended to be, I accuse you of never writing a fact-based post, and you respond...with this? Hmmm I wonder, if I accuse you of always paying my bar tab....does that mean you will pay it? John, the moderate Dems, are the ones who watered down your socialist health care dream. The TEA party wasn't really up and going yet when the "public option" was rejected. (and btw, losing elections due to misreading Iraq war weariness as acceptance of the progressive agenda? That is what moderate dems get for listening to far-left loons. The lesson: now and forever, ignore the far-left.) That is why: this is your poop, and it's dinner time! Where's my triangle? Ah there is it. Ding ding ding ding ding! and then rallying against it to the point it had a very good chance at failing. no different than what the democrats did with several Bush-led movements. that said, the online launching of obamacare was a fiaso. and yet, the tea party types were so entrenched against obamacare that they missed the boat on criticizing the launching of obamacare by shutting down the government. geez, what a lost opportunity. the tea party's argument could have had more resonance had it not muffed this punt. jw This is ironic in so many ways. Obamacare was designed by business incompetents. Business incompetence is a problem that runs rampant and unchecked throughout the Dimocratic party. That is why it failed. Lawyers, lobbyists, and Rahm Emanuels physician brother, and college professors? ALL INCOMPETENT. They don't know how to create, market and then sell health insurance, and clearly, they don't know schit about my job. This is the Dimocratic party's big problem going forward: They have no talent. Sure they have IT, but, and remember this is me saying this: IT is not the be all and end all. IT is largely: virtual. That's another way of saying: abstract, which, is another way of saying: NOT REAL. Somebody has to work and produce things like energy and food, and yes, even open and close the locks on Lake Michigan, and the people that work, due to Obamacare, aren't going to be Democrats. Hence the Democrats will lack business acumen going forward, as much as they lack it today. Ted Cruz, commander in chief of the shut down, is more popular now, than he has ever been. That's because: he looks "right". The shutdown looks "right". The TEA party demanded action, they got it, and now? They look right. (It doesn't matter if they were right right, they look right. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you on the concept that they made a tactical error, but...in the big politiical picture? It's a wash. And, it gives Ted Cruz permanent TEA party cred.) Smart Ds want to avoid all discussion of Obamacare all together(hence income, immigration, etc.), and bringing up the shutdown is he very last thing they want to do, now, because it reminds people how far the TEA party was willing to go....to protect this country from Dimocrat incompetence. Dumb Ds like yourself, bring up the shutdown...on purpose, unsolicited? John, that's doing it wrong. Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Well here's something that might help our "self styled elite" friends actually begin to understand the TEA party. http://thefederalist...-establishment/ Notice I said: begin. I am not big on allegory, and that link has some. However I think this suffices: The elites on both sides of the aisle are insular in their thinking. For the moneyed establishment, this is because they misunderstand the altered nature of the political process; for the intellectual elite, because their vision of conservatism focuses on the powdered wig and denigrates the coonskin cap. That's it right there: fellas, you don't understand the TEA party, because you are focused on the wrong things. Perhaps you should ask yourself where you get your focus from? And this: But for those who are prisoners to their narrow frame of the world[my emphasis, ahem, wawrow, bridog, etc. this means you], misunderstanding this long-running American tradition has turned into dripping condescension of the populist right. They decry the Tea Party and its new institutions as a kabuki dance performed for filthy luchre from ill-mannered hicks and racists… not realizing that it is in the nature of populism, particularly conservative populism, to to see the structures of power more clearly for what they are, as opposed to what they claim to be. Average TEA party person = Smart enough/experienced enough to see things as they are. It's really that simple. This is precisely why talking about the TEA party in terms of gay marriage is silly. The TEA party sees that issue as it is: practically inconsequential because it involved <10% of the country, when compared to things like entitlement reform, and now Obamacare, which involves ALL of us. And this: Just as the aristocracy of the day bought the Tories with the benefits of privilege, so today the existing Goliaths guard the status of the self-styled elite. Their approach to government not only protects elite status but also creates it, typically without merit – paired with the authoritarian technocrats’ belief that they know best, and have the right to make that best a reality. Hmm. Sound familiar? Obamacare screams: "without merit". So does Global Warming, so does Benghazi, so does Dodd Frank, so does QE/Fiat currency, so does....practically all of it. The TEA party sees things as they are: therefore, they correctly see the Dims, and many establishment Rs, as "without merit", therefore, there's no way in hell they buy the lie that "they know best". The empirical evidence tells anyone who is paying attention, with a lucid eye, that there's hardly any merit in DC. Obamacare happened precisely because it's designers are: "without merit". And this: It’s why such elitism is the one thing they are conservative about – the modern aristocracy bequeaths titles of nobility for surviving the attacks of the hicks, protecting its own, and attempting to control the agenda in the same way they did in pre-revolutionary times. But the more Goliath ignores, insults, and fights David, the stronger he becomes. pretty much sums it up: The more you attack the TEA party with inaccurate claims, the stronger it becomes. It's sorta like Obi Wan: "Leftists, if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". Darth Vader was using old thinking, and so he attacked and FAILED. Same result for leftists. Look at the fundraising $ at the beginning of the link. The TEA party HAS become more powerful than anyone, including me, could possibly imagine. Look at how Bills-fan-4ever poorly characterized the TEA party. That's who he thinks he is fighting. That's the nature of the battle he thinks he is fighting. Those are the tactics he thinks are going to work. He is: delusional. He wants to line up and fire muskets, not realizing he's fighting an unconventional opponent, in a frontier war. The TEA party isn't going to fight your kind of war, not ever, largely because they have nothing to gain from that kind of war. The true TEA party candidate has little interest in obtaining power in DC, as the normal establishment R would. They do want to line up and fire muskets because they want to claim DC, intact. TEA party person doesn't desire DC power: they want to destroy DC's crony capitalism/socialism power structure. This is why Democrats, thinking they can beat the TEA party, by attacking campaign finance, really have no clue. The IRS scandal has only empowered the TEA party, big time. Crony capitalism/socialism derives it's power from campaign finance. The only real difference between the TEA party and the left, on this issue: The TEA party wants unions/leftists special interests to be kicked out of politics as well as corporations. In this, the TEA party has the moral high ground, and 0 hypocrisy(take that, wawrow). See it yet wawrow/birdog/Bills-idiot? You are fighting the wrong enemy, in the wrong battle, at the wrong battlefield, at the wrong time, using the wrong tactics. No wonder "David" keeps winning/moving forward: The problem is that these Goliaths are slow and clumsy, and that, equipped with the technology-driven power of collaboration and the institutional wherewithal to match the established fundraisers, the Davids have more than enough smooth stones in hand to do what they came to do. The superior force on which the giants’ success depended grows ever less impressive with each passing election cycle. And the rebels are at the gate. This guy sees things as they are. The TEA party is in this for the long term. Patience is the key. We've seen what impatience does = nominating a witch to be a Senator in Delaware. But, the most important advantage the TEA party has over everyone: they admit their mistakes, as mistakes, first, and they learn from them. I seriously doubt any establishment D or R has learned anything new, or has been capable of admitting their mistakes, in years, if not decades. This only leads to, as the article says: In time, the British Empire’s failure to concede equality under the law to all the Dominions, including India, was the seed of its demise. demise. Sure, it's not going to happen right away, but, I assure you, most TEA party people I know, as I've said, are long-term thinkers. They know the value of peserverence. They aren't going to be distracted by "squirrel!". The long view on this says: constant, reasoned pressure is the way to go. In this the TEA party is the opposite of the environtologist whackos/expansion of gender/identity political activists, who require immediate action, because they require an immediate source of income, and damn the Obamacare consequences. The TEA party has plenty of $. Again, I direct you to their fundraising. Thus, the TEA party has time on it's side. It's all just a matter of time. Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 no, actually, the tea party has helped make it poop by watering down what it was intended to be... Could you please provide us examples of specifically how they did this? I don't need you to explain how maybe I misunderstood your point. I don't want to hear some anecdotal story told by a person from Jackson Hole that you met on a train while reading a book on what defines good music. You made a definitive statement. The Tea Party watered down ACA from what it was intended to be. It should be easy for you to link to specific bills the tea party itself wrote, passed and had signed by Obama that watered down the intent of Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I've read enough Tea Party platforms and the ones I've read all make it clear that they are not coming down on the side of any social issues. They are specific about that. They are all about fiscal responsibility, adherence to the constitution and smaller government that is committed to doing what they were set up to do. The dumbasses here who keep trying to make them something they are not are just plain ignorant. BF4E is one of those. Then why have all these Tea Party majorities in the states and the House of Reps gone hog wild on passing anti-abortion laws all over the place? Seems like woman's uterus' are all they care about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Then why have all these Tea Party majorities in the states and the House of Reps gone hog wild on passing anti-abortion laws all over the place? Seems like woman's uterus' are all they care about Links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Links? You didn't know that? http://www.google.com/search?q=+house+of+reps+abortion+bills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&surl=1&safe=active Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You didn't know that? http://www.google.co...l=1&safe=active I believe the point of confusion here to be the part about non-taxpayer funded late-term abortions. I'm not familiar with any TEA party movements that involve the right-to-life issue itself, but it strikes me as a pretty solid TEA party issue to end taxpayer funding of all abortions in general. I think we can separate the issue of life v choice from the taxpayer-assisted funding issue and have an honest debate on each, but I don't ever recall hearing life v choice as a TEA party issue. although given the personal philosophy most TEA party people embrace, I would assume most to be pro-lifers. I wouldn't categorize that as a TEA party issue, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Links? Now it's abortion? Abortion. A word I've never, ever, heard a single TEA partier say, never mind discuss seriously. They are fighting the wrong war, on the wrong battlefield, against the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, using the wrong tactics. Yes, the TEA party anti-abortion crusade. That must be how they've raised all this money, right gatorman? Ludicrous. And, encouraging. If they keep fighting the wrong enemy for long enough? The TEA party has a better chance of gaining enough strength to be deadly. Right now, it appears they won't ever know their enemy. We have plenty of history to tell us how that turns out. Let's see...Agincourt comes to mind, let's have some fun: I imagine: legions of proud(read: riddled with hubris) gatormans, on horseback, flailing in the mud, trying to get up a hill, but running into each other, going nowhere, and being shot to pieces by TEA party longbows. They yell "you want to stop all abortions!" as they die. And I'm standing there, on the top of the hill, laughing and saying "Not really. I just want to stop you", as another of my arrows hits its mark, and...stops them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 You didn't know that? http://www.google.co...l=1&safe=active What does your link to a bunch of other links have to do with the Tea Parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 LOL.... Over at Town Hall they have an enlightening video up this weekend which provides a look inside the inner workings of some progressive protesters. A reporter asks a number of them whether or not the Tea Party is racist. The answers are a rapid series of unanimous nods and enthusiastic answers in the affirmative. One in particular really expands on the subject. “I think they’re racist against blacks, Hispanics… I think they’re racist against women. In the interest of due diligence, the reporter asks them to provide a few examples of these terrible, racist tendencies. At that point, the responses become a bit more… vague. “Ummm…. no, because I’m not thinking about them right now. Uh… let’s see…” “It’s their reaction to us having a black president that makes them racist.” “I suppose the thing that makes them, uh… I actually can’t talk right now.” Here’s the video to pass the time on your Sunday morning. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pyuyd_tg0k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Apparently the positions of fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom from a tyrannical government are racist in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Apparently the positions of fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom from a tyrannical government are racist in nature. Stop oppressing me with your bigoted beliefs in limited government, you racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Apparently the positions of fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and freedom from a tyrannical government are racist in nature. Tyrannical government? What government is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts