Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) too soon. too soon. oh, wait, tea party, too late? jw Let's see which little B word here will be the first to call them "tea baggers". great start. dismissive before anyone even has a chance to form an opinion, thus setting up the classic "see, i told you they'd be against this." and "we can never get a break from those damn liberals." thumbsup. jw Should I change the thread's name to "Calling All Moles"? great. the kneejerk response with antagonism to the kneejerk response that was already anticipated by the initial post. Tea Baggers What do I win? nice. Ah, not so fast. As the OP I declare him my little B word for the rest of the month. nonsensical response, but that was expected. Obviously they are all white--racist party! what, it took this long for victimhood? my goodness. i think the express is starting to lose its steam. No look post( look at the title only): Why? According to many here, the TEA party has been dead for quite some time now. Yes, birdog especially is puzzled by your thread. yay, another county heard from. I do think there are exceptions of course- logically is makes sense for government to intervene where Markets to provide essential products/services for its people do no exist. the question is did have to be the Federal Government? Massachusetts and Vermont achieved a plan to offer coverage to its citizenry, you're telling me that Colorado couldn't? Healthcare unlike many other product and services markets affects everybody, everybody end up paying one way or another- so the Government wrote laws that private insurers had to coevr people, and people have to carry coverage... in the ideal world people could afford to pay for healthcare like they do Direct TV, but we all know that is not the case and share of risk is what we have decided to be best in this country. I have been specific about my outlines for an effective health plan in this country, it is the one place I believe Government should play a role outside of roads, bridges, defense, protecting borders and protecting individual liberties. I do think there are exceptions of course- logically is makes sense for government to intervene where Markets to provide essential products/services for its people do no exist. the question is did have to be the Federal Government? Massachusetts and Vermont achieved a plan to offer coverage to its citizenry, you're telling me that Colorado couldn't? Healthcare unlike many other product and services markets affects everybody, everybody end up paying one way or another- so the Government wrote laws that private insurers had to coevr people, and people have to carry coverage... in the ideal world people could afford to pay for healthcare like they do Direct TV, but we all know that is not the case and share of risk is what we have decided to be best in this country. I have been specific about my outlines for an effective health plan in this country, it is the one place I believe Government should play a role outside of roads, bridges, defense, protecting borders and protecting individual liberties. DEBATE! Hmm. How does that square...with Obamacare? obamacare reference! I'm only gonna say this once! How do you explain illegal side-payments that regularly occur wherever we find socialized anything, never mind health care? You've tried hard to pretend that markets don't work in health care, but, as the side-payments clearly illustrate: it's not a matter of "work". It's merely a matter of the market reacting to however the government Fs things up next. Markets "exist". Period. Even in totalitarian states, markets still exist. Similarly, illegal side payoffs to doctors exist in countries with socialized medicine because? EVERYTHING is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it. http://quotationsbook.com/quote/40426/ Thus, there's a market for the best pediatrician in Japan, and he won't see your kid unless you pay him off. Illegal, but, common and condoned. A guy from 2000 years ago said the bolded above...how many years is it going to take for you to know what he does? You are truly deluding yourself if you think there aren't any/won't be any side payments in Mass. and Vermont. No matter how you try to deny their existence, or delude yourself into believing that you control them, markets will always confound you. In fact, you don't seem to realize that the market is likely to punish Ds and health care administrators brutally, for putting this awful system on us. Ds are going to lose the Senate, perhaps 2016, and, you're going to have 30% of your business be Medicaid, and a whole slew of them in your emergency room. Don't think so? Well, Oregon is closer to you than me: http://www.latimes.c...0,2102014.story How's a 40% increase in people who pay you Medicaid sound? All this so you could stop giving away 10% of your business for free? All this, so your ER can see 40% more people, rather than less? Don't blame me/call me names for telling you this. I'm not the one punishing you. The market reaction, you "wanted", is punishing you. bolded stuff. and links. tell me more. ahhh, i'm bored. i know how this thing predictably ends with someone trying to hijack the thread and then being called out for being a liberal, thus setting up yet another thread to wind up in obscurity about nothing much at all in which the country's trouble deepen because the president isn't bipartisan, just like the last one wasn't. and clinton should'a been impeached and ronald reagan was a commie. time to head back to the EJ vs Tim debate! jw Edited February 1, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 too soon. too soon. oh, wait, tea party, too late? jw great start. dismissive before anyone even has a chance to form an opinion, thus setting up the classic "see, i told you they'd be against this." and "we can never get a break from those damn liberals." thumbsup. jw great. the kneejerk response with antagonism to the kneejerk response that was already anticipated by the initial post. nice. nonsensical response, but that was expected. what, it took this long for victimhood? my goodness. i think the express is starting to lose its steam. yay, another county heard from. DEBATE! So it's not OK to be dismissive of individuals leading with derogatory language? !@#$, kike, faggot, wetback, raghead, !@#$? That's the language you speak? Retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) So it's not OK to be dismissive of individuals leading with derogatory language? !@#$, kike, faggot, wetback, raghead, !@#$? That's the language you speak? Retard. i have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, but i'll ... uhh ... agree? cause, after all you're "the smartest man in the room." jw speaking of which, i should add a line in which i'm the smartassiest man in the room, but i've got no room, but my ass is big. ADD: i really do think you need to turn on your sarcasm meter. Edited February 1, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 What has the Tea Party accomplished? good question, but open to interpretation and attack on this board. it'll never be a winner. better question, would be how many anarchists did it take to screw in a light bulb? no one has an answer to that. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) You've answered your own question, and you don't even realize it. This really is becoming a sort of an unintentional experiment that demonstrates the power preconceived notions have over perception. Most of the left has never understood the TEA party intellectually. EDIT: See wawrow's post above. Answer to Wawrow: Stopping a POTUS with a 70% approval rating dead in his tracks the first chance they got = 2010, and keeping him that way. The liberal agenda has been dead since 2010. That's a hell of an accomplishment for a bunch of political novices. Wawrows have spent all their time attempting to attach faulty assertions to the TEA party, or what they wish it was. They've spent none of their time understanding what it truly is/how it operates. Thus, they constantly are confounded, when their own false assertions fail to bear out. The only thing they've exposed, in trying to expose the TEA party: their own flawed belief system and/or their own cognitive dissonance. You know, for a group that is supposed to be weakened, broken up, incoherent and deep in your rear view mirror, you progressives sure spend a ridiculous amount of time attacking it. The TEA party remains beyond the comprehension of the left. Nothing else explains this...phenomenon. They literally can't conceive of a group of people that doesn't require a "strongman" to lead it, and isn't comprised of servile pukes who require constant supervision(or community organizing), and an ever-present squirrel/boogeyman to hold it's attention. That's who the left is, so they assume everyone else is as well. How can I prove this? As always: behavior. The left shows it's own conception of what the TEA party...must be, by attacking whoever they perceive it's "leaders" to be. They've leveled vicious attacks on every "leader", and always concluded that, due to the depth and breadth of their character assassination, they cannot survive politically, and therefore: the TEA party is dead. But, a few weeks later, they are confounded to realize that yet another TEA party rally occurs. They can't understand how this can happen. After all, if one of their leaders was ever attacked as viciously by them and their media surrogates(John Edwards) they would be "dead", and so would anybody associated. Yet, once again, Palin, the Kock Brothers, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, you name it, all of the people they've "killed" show back up and get the crowd going, and cheering. It's as if the left has no power at all, and that's something they really can't comprehend. I've seen more of Ted Cruz in the last few weeks on TV...than I saw during the shutdown. Cruz is a leader(so is Chris Christie), and real leaders don't cringe and run when things don't go their way(ahem, Hillary). EDIT: What no leftist seems to get: when the names above are seen at a TEA party, they are merely attending it, just like everybody else. That's what this is really about: the TEA party are leaders. Most of its members lead every day, in many different ways. Why does a group of leaders need a leader? Every real member of the TEA party I've met: could lead the TEA party. Thus, unless the left destroys every single TEA party member, they will never destroy the TEA party. In contrast, the left's servile nature, as we are seeing with Obamacare, means the second the "strongman" is no longer strong, it will splinter and flee at the first sign of trouble. I'm not picking on any one here who is laid off. I know your pain. Yet this needs a reply - I'd care only for myself and not the millions upon millions? now that's funny. If I told people every day to "Get off the welfare and take care of yourself and stop sucking off the government" I'd be what a conservative or an I don't give a ratzass about you kind of guy? No one gave me any handouts when I was unemployed for 9 months back in '02. When my 24 weeks of $100.00 was up that was it!!! The same applies today. GET A JOB any job. How many unemployed people today said that back in '02? I was laid off for almost 4 months in '13 yet I never filed for unemployment. how many here are into their 2nd or 3rd extension. Just wondering, you aren't going to start telling us about how you've eaten dinner at Denny's with janitors are you? Or, talked to poor people as part of your class? Nothing about volunteer firemen, right? Edited February 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The House in 2010 and 2012. It's a process to bring the Republican Party back towards conservatism. see What about reducing the size of government will make the Tea Partiers lives better?? How will they benefit from smaller government? better question is: what about reducing the size of the tea party? how will we benefit from that? jw odd, in regards to this The TEA party remains beyond the comprehension of the left. Nothing else explains this...phenomenon. They literally can't conceive of a group of people that doesn't require a "strongman" to lead it, actually, we all thought sarah palin was the "strongman" leading this, which is absolutely fine with those people on the left. jw love this thread. it's got a carwreck quality to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) i have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, but i'll ... uhh ... agree? cause, after all you're "the smartest man in the room." jw speaking of which, i should add a line in which i'm the smartassiest man in the room, but i've got no room, but my ass is big. ADD: i really do think you need to turn on your sarcasm meter. So do you clearly understand exactly what I'm talking about, because you've diagnosed me with needing a sarcasm meter, or do you not understand what I'm talking about? Stop contradicting yourself in less than 100 words. Edited February 1, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) He's incomprehensible. Sort of a poor man's Gatortard. He ventures down here when Mistress Nasty is away and he needs to get his ass whipped. and yet, i like DC Tom because he pisses people off on both sides of the spectrum by keeping you and me in check. there's something to that, not that you'll ever acknowledge being a blowhard as i do. jw So do you clearly understand exactly what I'm talking about, because you've diagnosed me with needing a sarcasm meter, or do you not understand what I'm talking about? Stop contradicting yourself in less than 100 words. yes. of course not. Edited February 1, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 see better question is: what about reducing the size of the tea party? how will we benefit from that? jw odd, in regards to this actually, we all thought sarah palin was the "strongman" leading this, which is absolutely fine with those people on the left. jw love this thread. it's got a carwreck quality to it. Once again: you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the TEA party. "We all thought"...Yes, I'm fully aware of what you "thought" , and, as I described above: that's your problem. Now, you can go on telling yourself that your "thinking" is correct, and then howling in shame/shock every time the TEA party lays another "surprise" whipping on you. Or, you can understand that it is as I said: "your thinking" is your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Once again: you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the TEA party. "We all thought"...Yes, I'm fully aware of what you "thought" , and, as I described above: that's your problem. Now, you can go on telling yourself that your "thinking" is correct, and then howling in shame/shock every time the TEA party lays another "surprise" whipping on you. Or, you can understand that it is as I said: "your thinking" is your problem. speaking of needing sarcasm meters. this whole "finger-wagging" you accuse the nanny state of having is pretty common among the tea party folk, attempting to tell everyone else of what's best for them. and i swear, you folks have no sense of humor. why is that? you're all deep thinkers and navel-gazers failing to see the amusement of the lint. the irony is that the Tea Party folks see the hypocrisy in others and yet can't see the hypocrisy in themselves. from an outsider's point of you you seem to suffer from that which you accuse of others time and time again. but what do i know. i'm sure you'll set me straight as you have before. jw and see, i knew i'd draw you into a discussion. i'm pretty much irresistible. also, i failed to see this the first time because you provided far too openings in your response is: what is this whipping you're referring to? isn't this about making the country better not simply the tea party? that said, does the country win if the tea party is weaker? some might say yes, but i'm sure you'd disagree, which means you'd actually have to agree with me. and wouldn't that throw you into a conniption, but i'm sure you'll provide a response in which you'll question my liberal slant and thus avoid the point of the conversation altogether. because, come to think of it, if the tea party gains as much power as you might claim obama has, wouldn't that make it a tyrannical force subject to being unseated? Edited February 1, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) speaking of needing sarcasm meters. this whole "finger-wagging" you accuse the nanny state of having is pretty common among the tea party folk, attempting to tell everyone else of what's best for them. and i swear, you folks have no sense of humor. why is that? you're all deep thinkers and navel-gazers failing to see the amusement of the lint. the irony is that the Tea Party folks see the hypocrisy in others and yet can't see the hypocrisy in themselves. from an outsider's point of you you seem to suffer from that which you accuse of others time and time again. but what do i know. i'm sure you'll set me straight as you have before. jw I'm not sure you understand what the word hypocrisy means. I don't suffer from any delusions, like you, and I don't project a flawed perception of the world onto others, like you. Therefore, I am capable of seeing your TEA party derangement clearly, and you are not. In this, think of me this way: I'm merely a mechanic telling you where the problem in your car is. I have no reason to lie, and the problem is the problem. It will exist and persist, unless you take action to fix it. After all, this is your car, not mine. I can give you the big long technical answer as to what is wrong, as I sorta did above, or, I can just say: your TEA party perception is broke, and you are the one that keeps it broken. I'm not the one saying "the TEA party is dead" or "Sarah Palin is the leader of the TEA party". Nope. That's you and and yours. I don't have any hypocrisy at all. We aren't the ones who are running from our supposed "principles" via running away from Obamacare. There's your hypocrisy. Edited February 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure you understand what the word hypocrisy means. I don't suffer from any delusions, like you, and I don't project a flawed perception of the world onto others, like you. Therefore, I am capable of seeing your TEA party derangement clearly, and you are not. uhh, thanks for proving my point. you couldn't have stated my case any clearer. jw odd that the tyranny you're running away from is simply to install a tyranny to call your own. i fully understand what hypocrisy means. and the fact that you attempt to insert your own definition here is quite hypocritical of you. you won't get the irony in that. i'll say this. i certainly don't pretend to take myself as seriously as you do yourself. to be clear: that's not a compliment. and, if i might add, the world is in fact flawed. oh, by the way, i was kidding about palin. Edited February 1, 2014 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) uhh, thanks for proving my point. you couldn't have stated my case any clearer. jw odd that the tyranny you're running away from is simply to install a tyranny to call your own. See? You are incapable of perceiving this properly. I have 0 intention of imposing anything on anyone, and would fight very hard, in every sense of that word, to ensure that no one else does either. But, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand: specifically, your inability to perceive the TEA party correctly. The simple fact is: me being able to see something clearly, and you being unable, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It merely makes you someone whose beliefs have clouded their judgement. This is called: cognitive dissonance. The Wawrow narrative: The TEA party is dead, Sarah Palin leads the TEA party! The empirical: neither of these things is true, as evidenced by the many and various TEA party activities where Sarah Palin isn't even mentioned, and, the existence of these activities themselves When empirical destroys narrative? Dissonance = Wawrow comes here looking to accuse people of hypocrisy...when none exists, and in a topic specifically devoted to: perception of the TEA party. Again, the only hypocrisy here: Democrats who will be running away from Obamacare for the next 10 months. EDIT: Edit all you want. Nothing will change the fact that you "think" Sarah Palin is a TEA party leader, and that you've believed it every time MSNBC/CBS/some clown at AP has told you the TEA party is dead. Again, I say: me seeing something clearly, because I have 0 psychological commitment to it, has nothing to do with hypocrisy Your perception is broke. What are you gonna do to fix it? Edited February 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 See? You are incapable of perceiving this properly. I have 0 intention of imposing anything on anyone, and would fight very hard, in every sense of that word, to ensure that no one else does either. But, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand: specifically, your inability to perceive the TEA party correctly. The simple fact is: me being able to see something clearly, and you being unable, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It merely makes you someone whose beliefs have clouded their judgement. This is called: cognitive dissonance. The Wawrow narrative: The TEA party is dead, Sarah Palin leads the TEA party! The empirical: neither of these things is true, as evidenced by the many and various TEA party activities where Sarah Palin isn't even mentioned, and, the existence of these activities themselves When empirical destroys narrative? Dissonance = Wawrow comes here looking to accuse people of hypocrisy...when none exists. Again, the only hypocrisy here: Democrats who will be running away from Obamacare for the next 10 months. ha. keep digging. you are attempting to impose your own free will on me, by attempting to convince me of having your free will so long as it agree with your free will. aside from the fact that i've never suggested the tea party of being dead -- and lord knows, no one on the left would ever wish that to be so except for the fact it actually is adding to the paralysis of this country -- you conviently avoid the gaping hole of hypocrisy you open by suggesting you have no intention of imposing anything on anyone while arguing that you would certainly make sure to derail what you perceive to be unfair. is that not an imposition? you make the case that the tea party knows better than the electorate and the democracy is stagnant and should be fixed to something that was written more than 200 years ago. odd, that you're imposing that will when others might disagree. some would call that tyrannical. and then to suggest with absolute authority that you are right and i am wrong makes you not the delusional one? really? are you that delusional? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) ha. keep digging. you are attempting to impose your own free will on me, by attempting to convince me of having your free will so long as it agree with your free will. Again, me saying you aren't seeing something cleary, is a recognition of your free will. If I didn't, then I would say you are merely an idiot and/or incapable of thinking for yourself. I am not saying that. I am saying: you aren't seeing something clearly, and, it's on you to exercise your free will to either fix it, or do nothing. The only thing I won't do: fix it for you. That is the height of recongnizing your free will. aside from the fact that i've never suggested the tea party of being dead -- and lord knows, no one on the left would ever wish that to be so except for the fact it actually is adding to the paralysis of this country -- you conviently avoid the gaping hole of hypocrisy you open by suggesting you have no intention of imposing anything on anyone while arguing that you would certainly make sure to derail what you perceive to be unfair. is that not an imposition? Ok now you're being absurd. Not only is it remarkably consistent(which is the opposite of hypocritical...hence my wondering if you know what the word means) to say that I do not want to see anything imposed on anyone, by definition, the act of imposition itself is unfair. So, WTF? I am consistently against all forms of unfairness. Now, the burden of proof is always on the allegedly aggrieved...and...this descends into 11th grade history, so again, I ask: WTF are you talking about? you make the case that the tea party knows better than the electorate and the democracy is stagnant and should be fixed to something that was written more than 200 years ago. odd, that you're imposing that will when others might disagree. some would call that tyrannical. Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Constitutional fundamentalist.....is not necessarily = TEA party. The TEA party is about removing what is FAILING, and either replacing it with what works, or, with nothing. If we need to adjust the Constitution, we will do it: by the book, with Amendments, not making up the law as we go along(see: Obama). The TEA party is practical, and practicality says: you and your dopey environtologist/Obamcare/foreign policy = war through weakness: are FAIL. The TEA party is about results before it is about anything. Your ideas don't get results, so they have to go. You can stay. But, we aren't going to sit by and watch you impose further FAIL on anyone, including you. Again, consistent and fair. Practical decisions based on empirical truth. and then to suggest with absolute authority that you are right and i am wrong makes you not the delusional one? really? are you that delusional? jw John, you don't undersand the TEA party. Period. You can do whatever you want with that information. But, if you expect anybody here to take you seriously, you might want to consider that: you don't understand the TEA party, and there's a good chance that's because you'd rather believe in fairy tales/boogeymen. Until I see a better explanation, that's what I'm left with. Again, it's up to you to fix your perception. I'm just the guy telling you what's broken. Edited February 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 i'm pretty sure you're giving the Tea Party a little too much credit. yourself, too. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hi, my name is john and i'm an alcoholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 and i have a jones for picking on things i don't like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Painful to read. Its like watching two kids involved in "why are you hitting yourself" jw just blissfully unaware of how poorly he comes across. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Painful to read. Its like watching two kids involved in "why are you hitting yourself" jw just blissfully unaware of how poorly he comes across. . Crazy that he has the same name as that terrible Buffalo sportswriter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts