Conquer Club

rockfist wrote:but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

pimpdave wrote:

rockfist wrote:but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

rockfist wrote:but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

rockfist wrote:but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Coming from the pimpdave slanderer of the year.

It's ad hominems all the way down.

Phatscotty wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

rockfist wrote:but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

That's what the Tea Party does!

coming from the Tea Party slanderer of the year

Coming from the pimpdave slanderer of the year.

It's ad hominems all the way down.

slander? Show me

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Historically, I understand your post, and while your apology was perhaps historically necessary, I forgive you.

Your use of the term 'historically' here suggests that you don't understand the meaning.

Historically, your response suggests you are being sarcastic. Though in this case that's a big FAIL cause sarcasm must include humor and you fail here.

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

HapSmo19 wrote:what if they started shitting on police cars?

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Or you could just unlike the brand known as the Tea Party Express, because they a BGCRism. Yes, the co-opt is on, doesn't mean they redefined us though. There will probably by a fight within the Tea Party. Pray we win and they lose. (all the good tea partiers quitting won't help us tho)

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Or you could just unlike the brand known as the Tea Party Express, because they a BGCRism. Yes, the co-opt is on, doesn't mean they redefined us though. There will probably by a fight within the Tea Party. Pray we win and they lose. (all the good tea partiers quitting won't help us tho)

I'm going to stick with my own semi-unique brand of Libertarianism. The Tea Party was too easily co-opted.

spurgistan wrote:If you're gonna rip off pimpdave, at least have the common decency to link to some sort of outrageous thing Obama is theoretically responsible for.

rockfist wrote:Today President Obama, leader of the Left Wing Theft Squad proposed gathering together another populist mob to steal other people's money.

notyou2 wrote:

rockfist wrote:Today President Obama, leader of the Left Wing Theft Squad proposed gathering together another populist mob to steal other people's money.

Since when did Obama hire Cheney and Rumsfeld?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:y'know, they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

-TG

thegreekdog wrote:
I'm going to stick with my own semi-unique brand of Libertarianism. The Tea Party was too easily co-opted.

bradleybadly wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rockfist wrote:Scotty is pointing out that in the link all the man does is go through a litany of his perceived problems with the Tea Party (which may or may not be true for a small fringe of it) and does nothing to discuss the major issues the Tea Party was addressing - runaway government spending and excessive taxation and "representation" who was not listening to the voters (who have opposed both for many years). It was a piss poor way to attack the Tea Party, but hey if you can't discuss the actual issues - slander them.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense and has nothing to do with any of the arguments proposed so far.

Did you watch a different video Symm? Hitchens, who I like, goes on a rant (a calm, lucid rant, but a rant nonetheless) in the vein of a Jeanene Garofolo about how the Tea Party is concerned with race and whites being the minority (versus anything else). That seems to be the preferred way of attacking the Tea Party rather than discussing the issues the Tea Party brings up.

If I were a political commentator, I would attack the Tea Party by pointing out that the majority of Tea Party supporters don't believe in anything other than regular, big government conservative Republicanism. In other words, the Tea Party (as it exists right now) is nothing more than the normal Republican party.

I'm a bit tempted to do a tribute to Hitchens and go on a rant, but let's face it, a calm lucid rant is just an argument that you can't deal with.

To be fair, you seem to be asking for more time to work out how to disagree.

What's up Doc?
Sym

pimpdave wrote:That's impossible because no one in the Tea Party on this forum will be intellectually honest about what the Tea Party stands for.

For example, why does the Tea Party hate people with Parkinsons? I'm sure you'll answer, "No we don't!" And then I'll say, "But I thought you disavowed your allegiance to the Tea Party". And then I'll follow up with "And yes, the Tea Party does"

thegreekdog wrote:

pimpdave wrote:That's impossible because no one in the Tea Party on this forum will be intellectually honest about what the Tea Party stands for.

For example, why does the Tea Party hate people with Parkinsons? I'm sure you'll answer, "No we don't!" And then I'll say, "But I thought you disavowed your allegiance to the Tea Party". And then I'll follow up with "And yes, the Tea Party does"

Symm - Exhibit A.

And yes, I'm no longer a Tea Party member.